Patent Baristas

The Innovation Alliance, a coalition claiming to be committed to improving patent quality while protecting and promoting innovation, claims that the court system has taken up patent reform on its own making it more difficult for innovators to obtain and enforce patent rights and thus making patent reform moot.

The group claims that when patent legislation was first introduced in 2005, advocates argued that the patent system was out of balance, with lax standards that yielded weak or overly broad patents and harsh remedies that gave so-called patent speculators too much bargaining power.

Since that time, a series of U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions have shifted the balance of power between patent holders and users, changing standards of patentability and narrowing patent rights and remedies. The Innovation Alliance is now urging Congress and the current Administration to consider carefully the impact of these decisions before rushing to enact patent legislation that may further weaken our knowledge-based economy.

The Innovation Alliance has a fact sheet summing up the changing case law since 2006 as follows:

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (reversing Federal Circuit)

Permanent injunctions: Rejected “categorical rules” favoring or disfavoring permanent injunctive relief following a nonappealable judgment of infringement. In all cases, courts must retain equitable discretion to consider the merits of a request for permanent injunctive relief based on the traditional “four factor” test.

KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (reversing Federal Circuit)

Obviousness: Rejected, in part, the Federal Circuit’s “TSM test,” which conditioned obviousness on a specific finding of some motivation, teaching or suggestion to combine prior art teachings, in the particular manner claimed. The Supreme Court left intact the TSM test as a general standard for evaluating obviousness but held that TSM is not the exclusive test for establishing obviousness. Instead, the Court endorsed a flexible and expansive approach to the obviousness inquiry in lieu of any rigid or narrow formula.  By making it easier to establish obviousness, KSR makes it more difficult to obtain patent protection in the first instance, and tougher to defend against invalidity challenges post-issuance.

MedImmune v. Genentech, 549 U.S. 118 (2007) (reversing Federal Circuit)

Declaratory judgment suits by licensees: Held that a licensee need not terminate or breach a patent license agreement before it can bring suit to obtain a declaratory judgment that the patent is invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. The Court rejected Federal Circuit precedent that a patent licensee in good standing cannot seek a DJ without first repudiating its license agreement.

Microsoft v. AT&T, 550 U.S. 437 (2007) (reversing Federal Circuit)    

Extraterritorial enforcement of U.S. patents: Held that a master software disk that is exported and then used by foreign computer manufacturers to install software at the point of assembly is not a component within the meaning of Section 271(f) of the Patent Act. Section 271(f) allows the holder of a U.S. patent to block the export from the United States of components that can be assembled abroad to produce an infringing product, even though the patent is not enforceable in the place where that assembly takes place.

Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics (2008) (reversing Federal Circuit)    

Scope of patent exhaustion defense: Held that the patent exhaustion defense applies (i) to patented method claims, and (ii) when the authorized/licensed sale of a product substantially embodies a patented invention.

In re Seagate Technology, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007)    

Willfulness standard: Abandoned long-standing Federal Circuit precedent imposing an affirmative duty of care on accused infringers, and held that willful infringement requires at least a showing of objective recklessness.

In re Bilski, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008)    

Subject matter eligibility of software/business methods: Narrowed the scope of patent-eligible software/business method patents under Section 101 to methods that are either tied to a particular machine or apparatus or that transform a particular article into a different state or thing (the “machine or transformation test”).  Bilski will make it more difficult to obtain patents for such methods and tougher to defend method patents against invalidity challenges and, in the process, drag in non-software/business method inventions including pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents.

In re TS Tech, Misc. No. 888 (Fed. Cir. 2008)    

Venue: Ordered transfer of venue from the Eastern District of Texas to the Southern District of Ohio. The fact that vehicles containing the allegedly infringing article are sold in the Eastern District of Texas does not provide a meaningful connection with the venue since such vehicles are sold throughout the United States.    Product sales are often the sole basis for asserting venue in this district.

So, what does this mean?  Is patent reform already enacted?

David Boundy, Vice President & Assistant General Counsel Intellectual Property at Cantor Fitzgerald LP , sent a note of importance to the patent community regarding a notice and comment period, which opened last week and closes on March 16, 2008  (See: Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, Request for Comment, 74 Fed. Reg. 8819) .

Regulatory Oversight and Executive Order 12,866

Executive Order 12,866 is one of a handful of laws administered by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  The Executive Order requires agencies to analyze costs, benefits, and effects (both economic and non-economic) and to do cost-benefit balancing.

Before regulating, an agency must:

• identify a “specific market failure,” “compelling public need,” or “other specific problem”
• examine whether the problem arises out of existing regulations or other law
• consider all alternatives (including not regulating, and, presumably, internal reforms) to make sure that the problem is best addressed by regulation, and that the regulation proposed is the best and most cost-effective solution to the problem
• study the problem and the regulation to ensure that they are cost-benefit positive, using the best reasonably obtainable information
• “tailor its regulations and guidance documents to impose the least burden on society… consistent with obtaining the regulatory objectives.”

For the Continuations and Claims rules, the PTO based its cost analysis solely on interviews with PTO staff, and (at least based on the record produced in Tafas v. Dudas) never asked a single practicing patent attorney to estimate compliance costs or economic effects of impaired patent rights.

Guidance Documents

Executive Order 12866 was amended in January 2007 to cover “guidance documents,” those informal agency documents issued within the supervisory authority of agencies to their employees, and as nonbinding general guidelines for the public.  “Guidance documents” include agency manuals, agency personnel training materials, public notices interpreting agency rules or statutes, statements of policy that do not rise to hard-edged rules, and the like.

Modifications to “economically significant guidance documents” (the MPEP is such a document) require notice and comment.  The agency must list all guidance documents (examiner memoranda, examiner training materials, and the like) on a web page, and clearly identify which are still in effect and which are not.

Request for Comment

The current Executive Order is tailored around agencies that issue substantive regulations, for example environmental and workplace safety agencies.  The Federal Register notice specifically requests comments on these topics:

• The relationship between [the regulatory oversight office within OMB] and the agencies;
• Disclosure and transparency;
• Encouraging public participation in agency regulatory processes;
• The role of cost-benefit analysis;
• The role of distributional considerations, fairness, and concern for the interests of future generations;
• Methods of ensuring that regulatory review does not produce undue delay;
• The role of the behavioral sciences in formulating regulatory policy; and
• The best tools for achieving public goals through the regulatory process.

Thus, the patent community has an important chance to have an effect on the process of rule making, and on White House oversight of the PTO.  Comments that might be helpful to OMB would include which regulatory oversight and rule making concerns are specifically applicable to the PTO.

Special consideration might be warranted for how should Executive Order 12866 can be strengthened so that agencies can’t cheat?  For example, the economic effect of a regulation is classified by the agency in order to signal to OMB how much scrutiny it should give the rule during regulatory review.  But this gives agencies great temptation to fail to evaluate economic effect (so the effect can be estimated at zero), or to under-report.

Other areas include:  How should OMB ensure that agencies fairly and accurately assess and report economic effects to OMB?  What key terms should be defined to prevent cheating?  Are there particularly egregious examples of cheating that OMB should use as case studies to design anti-cheating mechanisms?

The PTO classified the IDS, Markush, and Appeal rules as “not significant,” that is, having essentially zero economic effect.  The PTO classified both the Continuations and the Claims rules into the middle category, “other significant,” by the device of splitting them apart and reporting to OMB only the costs of each as if implemented separately.

Comments Go To the White House Office of Management and Budget

Note that these comments go to the White House Office of Management and Budget, not to the PTO.  The Federal Register notice asks that comments be emailed to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.  In addition, comment letters concerning the PTO should be cc’ed to the OMB Desk Office having oversight responsibility for the PTO, at Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov (note the period after the A).

Entrepreneur and self-promoter Amilya Antonetti, a CNBC expert on The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch, is looking for entrepreneurs with the next great success story to be featured on her upcoming Reality TV Show pilot.

Amilya wants to show that that “one person with an idea and passion can change the world or at least change their personal circumstances with just a little push in the right direction.”  This is not an endorsement, just an FYI:

Are you looking for that Lucky Break to overcome the obstacles holding you back in life? Are you interested in having your product or service exposed to millions? Would you like Amilya and her team to jump in to take on your life challenge? Are you ready to make the hard decisions and create a new road map?

If you would like to be considered for Amilya’s upcoming reality TV show, just submit your great idea or life challenge by clicking the word AUDITION/IDEA SUBMISSION and follow the instructions for the 60 question survey.

From from InventBay.com.

It didn’t take long for various groups to start issuing statements on the Patent Reform Act of 2009 bill introduced today.

Manzullo and Michaud

U.S. Reps. Don Manzullo (R-IL) and Mike Michaud (D-ME) said the latest patent reform bill introduced in the House and Senate this afternoon would actually weaken intellectual property protections for American manufacturers and put hundreds of thousands more Americans on the unemployment lines. Manzullo and Michaud led a bipartisan coalition of 64 Members of Congress last fall fighting for major changes in last year’s patent reform bill.

“This year’s version of the so-called patent reform bill again weakens America’s strong patent system, making it easier for foreign companies to take our ideas and our jobs. By diminishing the damage awards in patent infringement cases, this bill would encourage intellectual property theft by foreign competitors, putting 298,000 American manufacturing jobs at risk and curtailing U.S. research and development spending by $66 billion, according to a recent economic study. It makes no sense to us why we would threaten the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Americans at a time when our people are in desperate need of jobs.

Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform

The Chairman of the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, Gary Griswold, released the following statement after the introduction of The Patent Reform Act of 2009, in the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives:

“Our coalition is committed to achieving reforms that will enhance the patent system so that valid patents are issued promptly and cost efficiently thereby encouraging innovation that will create jobs and promote America¹s economic recovery.  Legislation that makes these kinds of changes will permit Congress to reach useful and effective reforms to the patent system, and should be passed in the 111th Congress.

Unfortunately, several provisions in the bill are problematic because of their potential negative impact on innovation and job growth.  For example, the damages methodology in this bill heavily favors infringers over inventors.  At a time when we need to stimulate our innovation and aid U.S. manufacturers, this bill sends an international signal that patented American technology can be copied with little or no consequence.  We will erode our global leadership in research and invention if we eviscerate this cornerstone of our patent system. Specifically, provisions intentionally designed to reduce damages, such as prior art subtraction,  should not be part of any patent reform enacted by Congress.

Visit Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform for more information.

Innovation Alliance

The Innovation Alliance expressed its deep disappointment in response to the patent bills noting its concerns with several key provisions that it says would weaken patent protections, chill innovation for large segments of the U.S. business community, and cost American jobs.

“Unfortunately, the bill introduced today is basically the same divisive bill that was opposed by a broad range of American industries, innovators, universities and labor unions when it stalled in the last Congress,” said Brian Pomper, Innovation Alliance Executive Director.  “The U.S. patent system has been critical to the success of countless American entrepreneurs, large and small businesses, and workers for over two hundred years.  At this time of grave economic uncertainty, Congress should not make changes recklessly, without compelling evidence that the proposed changes will positively strengthen the U.S. economy.  This is especially true in light of sweeping changes in recent Supreme Court patent jurisprudence.”

The Alliance also issued a new study, “Judicial Patent Reform: How Recent Federal Court Decisions Have Already Shifted the Balance Between Patent Holders and Patent Users.”

Manufacturing Alliance on Patent Policy

The Manufacturing Alliance on Patent Policy released the following statement regarding introduction of legislation to modify the U.S. patent system:

Chief among our concerns is the language that reduces penalties on those who take the intellectual property of others. While we appreciate the sponsors’ willingness to hear our concerns, the legislation as introduced includes language from last Congress that would seriously undermine our patent protections.

We share the desire to improve the patent system.  We are concerned that reducing penalties for patent infringement would jeopardize manufacturing jobs and R&D investment without strengthening patent protection.  A recent economic analysis showed that aspects of this legislation would put as many as 298,000 manufacturing jobs at risk and reduce R&D investment by up to $66 billion.   This would be the wrong direction at a time when the American economy is struggling severely.

See MAPP for additional information.

PhRMA

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) Senior Vice President Ken Johnson issued the following statement:

“By  lowering the penalties for those found by a court to have infringed another’s patent, the bill would reduce the value of the patents that are the lifeblood of America’s innovative business sectors, which depend on intellectual property protection. Likewise, the bill does not address one of the key recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences, which would reform the inequitable conduct doctrine.

“A strong and reliable patent system provides American businesses with an incentive that spurs innovation across the country. It is especially important for pharmaceutical and biotechnology innovators that are faced with the daunting average investment of 10 to 15 years and roughly one billion dollars to develop a new drug. We are concerned that the proposed framework will put this important incentive – and, with it, the jobs that are provided by innovative industries – at risk.

“Unfortunately, a reduction in penalties – or damages – will clearly put the promise of IP protection at risk by leaving patent holders unable to recover their losses if infringed. This reduces the overall value of the patents because holders will not be able to rely on that protection.

BIO

Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) President and CEO Jim Greenwood issued the following statement regarding the introduction of patent reform legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate:

“While BIO continues to have concerns with some of the specific language in the bills introduced today, we understand that today’s introductions are just the beginning of the legislative process.  We look forward to working in good faith with the Chairmen, other Senators and Representatives, and other stakeholders to achieve positive, meaningful, and consensus-oriented reforms to the patent system – reforms that will further enhance patent quality and spur innovation and economic growth here at home.

“We share President Obama’s goal of investing in the innovation economy to help fuel our nation’s economic recovery. The nation’s strong patent system has enabled us to be a world leader on innovation.  Weakening intellectual property protection would jeopardize this leadership. Changes to the patent system require careful consideration and debate, particularly in the current economic environment.  We are eager to play a constructive role in this regard.”

Reactions from the Blawgosphere:

• Patent Reform Act of 2009, from the hip (from Promote the Progress)
  
• The Patent Reform Act of 2009 (Here We Go Again) (from PFF)
• Patent Reform Act of 2009 (from Anticipate This!)
• New Patent Bill Destroys American Jobs (from IP Watchdog)
• Senate and House Introduce New Patent Reform Legislation (from Patent Docs)
• Excitement (from Patent Prospector)
• The Patent Reform Act of 2009: Absent Inequitable Conduct Provisions Help Biotech (Cross-Border Biotech Blog)
• Patent Reform Act of 2009 (from Patently-O)
• The Patent Reform Act of 2009 (here we go again) (from Rational Review)
• Patent Reform Act of 2009 (from Chicago IP Litigation blog)
• Say Hello To 2009 Patent Reform – Dual Bills Introduced In House, Senate (from the 271 Patent Blog)
  

Following hot on the heels of the Patent Reform Acts of 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and former chair Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), along with House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) and ranking minority member Lamar Smith (R-Texas), introduced, you guessed it, the “Patent Reform Act of 2009.”

The legislation (S.515 and H.R.1260) is set to pick up where patent-reform efforts left off last year.  Controversial provisions remain so get ready to see continued efforts at lobbying for changes.  Sens. Leahy and Hatch conceded during a press conference that more work needed to be done on the legislation but said reforms were needed urgently to improve patent quality and create more certainty in patent litigation.

In a nutshell, the Patent Reform Act of 2009 Senate Bill provides for the following:

Sec. 1.  Short title; table of contents

This Act may be cited as the Patent Reform Act of 2009.

Sec. 2.  Right of the first inventor to file

This section converts the United States’ patent system into a first-inventor-to-file system, giving priority to the earlier-filed application for a claimed invention.  Interference proceedings are replaced with a derivation proceeding to determine whether the applicant of an earlier-filed application was not the proper applicant for the claimed invention – such a proceeding will be faster and less expensive than were interference proceedings.  This section also encourages the sharing of information by providing a grace period for publicly disclosing the subject matter of the claimed invention, without losing priority.

Further, an exception is made for claiming an invention if the subject matter previously disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint invention or if the subject matter was owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.

Sec. 3. Inventor’s oath or declaration

In general.— The section streamlines the requirement that the inventor submit an oath as part of a patent application, and makes it easier for patent owners to file applications.

Sec. 4.  Right of the inventor to obtain damages

Damages.  Requires the court to conduct an analysis to ensure that, when a “reasonable royalty” is the award, it reflects the economic value of the patent’s “specific contribution over the prior art”, i.e. the contribution the invention makes to promoting science and the useful arts per the requirement of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.  The court also is required to identify the factors that will be considered in determining a reasonable royalty, ensuring that the record is clear on what considerations the judge or jury assessed in awarding damages.

Willful infringement.  This section changes the doctrine of willful infringement in both procedural and substantive respects. Courts will now require a plaintiff to demonstrate with clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted in a manner that was objectively reckless, which is also subject to a good faith defense.

Prior User Rights.­  If the same invention is later patented by another party, the prior user may not be liable for infringement to the new patent holder, although all others will be.  This section permits the defense to be used by entities controlling or controlled by the prior user.

Sec. 5.  Post-grant procedures and other quality enhancements

The section expands the evidence that a party may cite to the USPTO under § 301 to include written statements of the patent owner regarding the scope of the patent claims and evidence that the claimed invention was in public use or on sale in the United States more than one year prior to the application.  Requests for reexamination under § 302 can be based on either prior art or prior public use or sale, as can requests for inter partes reexamination under chapter 31.  Inter partes reexamination will now be heard by an administrative patent judge in accordance with procedures established by the Director.  Inter partes reexamination is further improved by permitting a third-party requester to file written comments.

A third-party requester is estopped from asserting the invalidity of any claim determined to be valid in inter partes reexamination on any ground that was raised in reexamination.  Further, the estoppel bar to instituting an inter partes reexamination proceeding after a judicial determination of patent validity is lowered from a “final decision” to a judgment of the district court.

This section also creates a new post-grant review procedure that can be instituted either within 12 months after the issuance of a patent or a reissue patent, or if the patent owner consents.  The post-grant review begins with a cancellation petition and moves forward only if the Director determines that there is a substantial new question of patentability.  The presumption of validity does not apply in this proceeding, but the burden of proof is on the party advancing a proposition.  The Director will prescribe rules governing the proceeding, including rules to sanction abuse.  This section prohibits successive filings or filings after a final decision in a civil action.

Sec. 6. Definitions; patent trial and appeal board

The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences is replaced with the new Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”).  The Board is charged with (i) reviewing adverse decisions of examiners on applications and reexamination proceedings, (ii) conducting derivation proceedings, and (iii) conducting the post-grant review proceedings.

Sec. 7.  Submissions by third parties and other quality enhancements

This section creates a mechanism in § 122 for third parties to submit timely pre-issuance information relevant to the examination of the application, including a concise statement of the relevance of the submission.

Sec. 8.  Venue and jurisdiction

Subsection (a) – The venue provision for patent cases, section 1400 of title 28, is amended as follows:

Civil actions for patent infringement, including declaratory judgment actions, may only be brought in a judicial district (1) where the defendant has its principal place of business or is incorporated or formed, or, for a foreign corporation with a U.S. subsidiary, where its primary United States subsidiary has its principal place of business or is incorporated or formed; (2) where the defendant has committed substantial acts of infringement and has a regular and established physical facility that the defendant controls and that constitutes a substantial portion of the operations of the defendant; (3) where the primary plaintiff resides, if the primary plaintiff in the action is an institution of higher education or a nonprofit patent and licensing organization (as those terms are defined in this section); (4) where the plaintiff resides, if the sole plaintiff in the action is an individual inventor who qualifies as a “micro-entity” pursuant to section 123 of title 35.  A defendant may request the case be transferred where (1) any of the parties has substantial evidence or witnesses that otherwise would present considerable evidentiary burdens to the defendant if such transfer were not granted, (2) transfer would not cause undue hardship to the plaintiff, and (3) venue would be otherwise appropriate under section 1391 of title 28.

Sec. 9. Patent and Trademark Office regulatory authority

This section gives the director rulemaking authority to set or adjust any fee under §§ 41 and 376, and section 1113 of title 15, provided that such fee amounts are set to reasonably compensate the USPTO for the services performed.  The Director may also reduce such fees.

Sec. 10. Residency of Federal Circuit judges.

The District of Columbia area residency requirement for Federal Circuit judges in section 44(c) of title 28 is repealed.  Any judge of the Federal Circuit who does not reside within a 50-mile radius of Washington DC must use the chambers of an existing courthouse in the district where the judge resides.

Sec. 11. Micro-Entity Defined

This section adds a new § 123, which defines the qualifications for “micro-entity” status, which can be used by the USPTO to craft rules appropriate to a newly-defined class of small inventors.

—————————
The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing on the new legislation for March 10.

See the Senate version here.

From 21st to 23rd June 2009, the 2nd IP Business Congress, will be held at the Four Seasons Hotel in Chicago.  Hosted by Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) magazine, the IP Business Congress is designed for senior business executives responsible for the creation and management of IP value inside corporations, as well as those who advise them.

The program for the IP Business Congress, incorporating the Chief Intellectual Property Officer (CIPO) Summit and the IP Hall of Fame Gala Dinner, is available online here . It features plenary sessions addressing issues such as brand IP, strategic IP and business alignment, and IP value creation, as well as a range of breakouts examining legal, financial, strategic and business-related topics.

Maximising the value of intellectual property assets has never been more important. Properly managed, IP can provide strategic flexibility, decrease corporate costs, build bottom-line return and increase shareholder value. All are vital in today’s difficult economic and financial conditions. The IP Business Congress will be focusing on how senior managers can secure all the advantages that IP offers.

Here’s a bonus:  Readers of Patent Baristas can receive a 10% discount from the current price of attending the event. To get this special price, just send me an email me and mention that you read about the event on this blog.  We’ll send you a discount code.  What’s not to love?

The first IP Business Congress was held in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, in June 2008. According to the press release, it was an event unlike any other in the IP calendar and brought together over 400 IP thought leaders from around the world. A full report of the conference can be accessed here.

Coming off a recent discussion about the role patents play in fostering innovation (see: Are Patents A Driver of Innovation or Just a Tax?), it is fortunate that I’ve had a chance to read Michael Gollin’s excellent book on how intellectual property not only drives the innovation cycle but sometimes stifles it, too.

Gollin’s book, entitled “Driving Innovation: Intellectual Property Strategies for a Dynamic World,” Cambridge University Press, covers fundamental IP concepts and practical strategies that apply to all innovation organizations, including industry, nonprofit institutions, and developing countries.  Yes, even countries.  Innovation is the very engine that propels every nation towards more development and participation requires a global perspective on how the IP system balances access to innovations, how it changes over time, and how it encourages and sometimes stifles innovation.

Gollin points out that in the knowledge economy, globalization, innovation and political leadership are the main driving forces in society.  Unfortunately, the tightening interdependence of markets, technology and culture also drive a growing disparity between global haves and have-nots.

The duality of intellectual property is that it is a source of wealth and a source of an accompanying cost.  That is, IP brings wealth only with some concomitant toll (a sort of hidden tax), whether on competitors or consumers, even if it is only a small part of the wealth pie generated.

So it is with IP rights, they inherently set up a tension between the pharmaceutical company enforcing rights and the patients wanting greater (read: less costly) access to medicine.  A technology company wants to build and market a product but is forced to pay licensing fees to a patent holder.

In the end, this book is not about what the IP should be or how it could be changed but is about how to survive in a global system when IP rights have developed. This book is written as a very practical guide for a broad audience of anyone interested in innovation and how IP encourages (or discourages) the cycle of development.  As Gollin puts it:

Creative individuals build on past knowledge, then share and develop their creative work with others in their community, until the innovative result of the collective effort can be adopted by larger society, thus enriching the pool of available knowledge for further creative effort.

Driving this cycle is an IP system that provides incentives to create, defines exclusive rights so that developments can be controlled and offers the means for dissipation to society.  Gollin now provides a smart and understandable guide to the law and business of patents.

Driving Innovation is one of the best books around for weaving the reader through the history of intellectual property and the inherent tension between exclusion and access, private rights and public domain, monopoly and competition.  Balancing these conflicting roles affects individuals and nations alike.  We highly recommend this guide to anyone who has to work in the knowledge age.

“Driving Innovation: Intellectual Property Strategies for a Dynamic World,” by Michael A. Gollin, is available from Amazon.  Michael A. Gollin is a law partner at Venable LLP in Washington, DC, and a faculty member at the Georgetown University McDonough School of Business.

Note:  Proceeds from book sales will be shared with the Public Interest Intellectual Property Advisors (PIIPA), an international non-profit organization that makes intellectual property counsel available for developing countries and public interest organizations who seek to promote health, agriculture, biodiversity, science, culture, and the environment.

Since posting a list of the top patent blogs you should be reading, I got some inquiries about the top business blogs, particularly venture money blogs. In using the same pseudo-scientific methods of the earlier list, I reviewed what are the most cited VC blogs.

This list is not meant to be definitive given the difficulty in even determining just what is a VC blog. One person’s gifted venture blogger may be another person’s shameless self-promoter. So, this very imperfect method came up with the following blog list:

1. Paul Kedrosky’s Infectious Greed. Technorati Rank: 2,180
2. Guy Kawasaki’s How to Change the World.  Technorati Rank. : 3,511
3. Feld Thoughts. Technorati Rank: 11,939
4. BijanBlog (Bijan Sabet, Spark Capital). Technorati Rank: 13,834
5. Union Square Ventures. Technorati Rank: 15,568
6. Lightspeed Venture Partners Blog. Technorati Rank: 17,629
7. A VC. Technorati Rank: 18,175
8. This is Going to be BIG. Technorati Rank: 29,826
9. Venture Chronicles. Technorati Rank: 32,329
10. Post Money Value. Technorati Rank: 33,674
11. VentureBlog. Technorati Rank: 44,344
12. Redeye VC. Technorati Rank: 48,789
13. TJ’s Weblog. Technorati Rank: 93,109
14. Seeing Both Sides. Technorati Rank: 108,030
15. Who Has Time For this?. Technorati Rank: 131,933
16. Jeff Clavier’s Software Only. Technorati Rank: 131,933
17. BeyondVC. Technorati Rank: 138,90
18. Seeing Both Sides. Technorati Rank: 147,186
19. Paul Allen. Technorati Rank: 156,048
20. Burnham’s Beat. Technorati Rank: 166,260
21. EarlyStageVC. Technorati Rank: 177,068
22. Set Levine’s VC Adventure. Technorati Rank: 190,091
23. VC Confidential. Technorati Rank: 204,504
24. Florida Venture Blog by Dan Rua. Technorati Rank: 220,576
25. Will Price. Technorati Rank: 229,434

*Ranked according to Technorati. Don’t take too much stock in any blog’s particular numbers; all of these blogs are in the top percentile. Many others, which just missed the top rankings according to citations, are nonetheless great blogs, like Genuine VC; Dealflow; Above the Crowd; Christine.net; Sacred Cow Dung; and Tim Oren’s Due Diligence.

Technorati Rank is calculated based on how far you are from the top. The smaller your Technorati Rank, the closer you are to the top. But, this is not an objective standard since (a) the rankings change almost daily since Technorati Rank is based upon the number of blogs linking to another blog in just the last 6 months and (b) links are not related to quality. So, take this for what it’s worth.

We think you’ll find some good reading among this group regardless of rank. If you have a top venture blog you think should be listed, send me an e-mail and I will update the list.