It’s been a wild ride of a year and it is with mixed emotions that we bring 2008 to a close. With 228 posts and 6 million hits, a lot has gone into Patent Baristas and I hope this only improves next year.
To wrap up the blogging year, I thought I’d just mention a few of the top viewed posts for 2008:
We would also like to acknowledge some of the top referrers to Patent Baristas (not in order). It is with great thanks that I note those that bring many of the visitors to our site:
The Law Bloggers Fantasy Football League, Blawger Bowl IV, wrapped up this year with a surprise rookie win. The league, made up of draft teams managed by law blawgers, has proven that talent is not a requirement for success.
The No-Whip Mochas (8-5) brought down perennial winner Bizz Bang Buzzers (9-4), although not without a struggle to maintain any sense of dignity. No gloating here, this was definitely an accidental win.
We’ll see who returns next year. You can join by dropping a line to Kevin Heller, the Tech Law Advisor and commissioner of the Legal Bloggers Fantasy Football League.
The report focuses on intellectual property (IP) since the U.S. IP-intensive industries employ nearly 18 million workers, account for more than $5 trillion of the U.S. GDP, and represent 40% of U.S. economic growth. In 2006, U.S. patents accounted for one fourth of all patents granted worldwide.
A blueprint for modernizing and fostering a more efficient patent office, the report addresses 11 key areas: it features suggestions to improve the quality of patents, patent examiner retention, the current fee structure, and the office’s relationship with the user community, among other reforms.
The report was sponsored by the Chamber’s GIPC and features contributions from respected leaders of the patent community, including former USPTO officials. The full report is available here.
The Chamber’s Global Intellectual Property Center works to champion IP as vital to creating jobs, saving lives, advancing global economic growth and generating breakthrough solutions to global challenges. The U.S. Chamber is the world’s largest business federation representing more than 3 million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region.
In a nonprecedential opinion today, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC (06-1634, -1649), Circuit Judge Moore affirmed the denial of patent-eligibility of a medical treatment method under 35 USC § 101, that is, a question of whether the claimed invention meet the requirements for patentable subject matter.
The entire opinion is as follows:
“In light of our decision in In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment that these claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dr. Classen’s claims are neither “tied to a particular machine or apparatus” nor do they ‘transform[] a particular article into a different state or thing.’ Bilski, 545 F.3d at 954. Therefore we affirm.”
The claims in Classen are directed to methods of selecting vaccine regimens by comparing two regimens and identifying the regimen less likely to cause chronic autoimmune disorders. The patent was killed by District Court Judge Quarles as directed to patent ineligible processes under Section 101 under the belief that the immunization step was an “insignificant post-solution activity” and the claims were merely an indirect attempt to patent the idea that there is a relationship between vaccine schedules and chronic immune mediated disorders and “an attempt to patent an unpatentable natural phenomenon.”
The Court reasoned:
Although articulated as a process, the ‘283 patent does not claim a specific technique or technical process of testing vaccine safety. Instead, the ‘283 patent describes only a general inquiry of whether the proposed correlation between an immunization schedule and the incidence exists. As such, the process is indistinguishable from the idea itself. Accordingly, the ‘283 patent seeks to patent an unpatentable natural phenomenon.
The question here is whether the claims meet the machine-or-transformation test in the application of the natural phenomena identified by the inventors. Note that the Federal Circuit in Bilski left open the possibility that the requirements could change depending upon future developments in technology and the sciences, which could alter the machine-or-transformation test noting that “we recognize that the Supreme Court may ultimately decide to alter or perhaps even set aside this test to accommodate emerging technologies.”
It looks like the Federal Circuit decided to just knock this one down without comment so they could wait for a better case to analyze deeply — unless they were just in a rush to get out of session for the holidays.
Since May 2001, a secondary type of patent, known as an “innovation patent,” has been available under Australian patent law.
This underutilised type of patent is extraordinarily useful in several circumstances which will be discussed below.
Key Features
The key features of the innovation patent are:
the patent term is 8 years rather than 20 years;
plants and animals, and biological processes for the generation of plants and animals, are excluded from the innovation patent system (an exception to this exclusion exists for microbiological processes, and products thereof);
there can be no more than 5 claims in an innovation patent;
the innovation patent issues without any substantive examination. However, the innovation patent cannot be enforced until after it has been examined & certified by the APO. Hence, examination & certification is an optional procedure which occurs subsequent to issuance;
the standard for patentability is “innovative step” as opposed to “inventive step”.
“an invention is to be taken to involve an innovative step when compared to the prior art base unless the invention would…only vary from…[the prior art reference]…in ways that make no substantial contribution to the working of the invention.”
The above phrase recently received its first detailed judicial consideration in Delnorth Pty Ltd v Dura-Post (Aust) Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1225.
The Claims
In the above-referenced decision, the invention related to a flexible roadside post. The broadest claim reads as follows (reference numerals added to aid the reader):
“A roadside post (10) comprising an elongate body formed of sheet spring steel and having a longitudinal axis (L), a transverse axis (T) transverse to said longitudinal axis, a front face (31) and a rear face (33), said front and rear faces transversely extending generally parallel to said transverse axis, wherein said body is elastically bendable through 90 degrees from an unbent state about said transverse axis.”
A narrower claim required that the post further comprise:
“a surface coating, applied to said body front and rear faces, providing an exposed front face and exposed rear face of said roadside post, respectively.”
One piece of prior art (known as the “Supaflex Guide Post”) embodied all of the features of claim 1, except that the Supaflex Guide Post was constructed of a plastics material, whereas the claim was directed to roadside posts “formed of sheet spring steel”.
A second piece of prior art (a US Patent to “Pellowski”) embodied all of the features of claim 1, except that Pellowski taught that the post should be placed in the road rather than beside the road. Pellowski did not disclose the “surface coating” introduced in the narrower claim.
The Decision
The trial court outlined three steps that should be followed in determining whether the claimed invention meets the innovative step standard.
Firstly, the claimed invention should be compared with the prior art reference to identify the difference(s).
Secondly, the difference(s) should be looked at through the eyes of the person skilled in the relevant art in the light of common general knowledge as it existed in Australia before the priority date of the claim.
Thirdly, it must be decided whether the difference(s) make a “substantial contribution to the working of the invention” as required by subsection 7(4). It is important to note here that the question is not whether the difference is better than, or superior to, the prior art. Rather, the question is whether the difference (i.e. the distinguishing feature, per se), makes a substantial contribution to the working of the invention.
The court held that the broad claim defined an innovative step over the Supaflex Guide Post. Importantly, the question was not whether the substitution of steel for plastic resulted in a better roadside post. Rather, the question was whether the presence of steel contributed to the working of the roadside post. Given that the roadside sign only existed by virtue of the presence of steel, the court quickly answered this question in the affirmative.
The court held that the broad claim lacked an innovative step over Pellowski. The reasoning of the court is not well expressed in the decision. However, it seems implicit that the relocation of the Pellowski post from within the road to beside the road did not make a substantial contribution to the working of the invention.
The court then went on to find that the narrower claim also failed to define an innovative step over Pellowski. Particularly, the court stated that:
“I would not regard a surface coating, applied to the body, front and rear faces, as making a substantial contribution to the working of the invention…I do not suggest that it has no functional purpose, rather that the contribution is not significant enough.”
In summary, innovative step exists if (a) there is a difference, and (b) that difference substantially contributes to the function or working of the invention. Importantly, the innovative step test does not involve any consideration of the merit of the difference.
In this case, steel was held to make a substantial contribution to the working of the invention, whereas the surface coating was held not to make a substantial contribution to the working of the invention.
Practical Implications
The authors are of the opinion that the Innovation Patent System should be considered by clients in at least the three situations outlined below.
Firstly, an Innovation Patent should be considered in circumstances where the invention is unable to meet the significantly higher inventive step threshold associated with standard patents. For example, a novel, but non-inventive, pharmaceutical formulation would be perfect subject matter for an innovation patent. Similarly, where a known product is first made from a known material, as in Delnorth, then patent protection may be possible.
Secondly, an Innovation Patent should be considered for inventions, of any standard or technology, which are of particular commercial importance or are likely to be litigated.
Thirdly, a divisional Innovation Patent should be filed immediately, if possible, whenever the applicant becomes aware of the existence of an infringer.
Lower Level Inventions
When dealing with a lower standard invention, the prudent strategy will be to file a standard application and wait to receive the examiner’s views. If it proves impossible to convince the examiner that inventive step is present, then it is possible to convert the standard application to be an application for an innovation patent.
Of course, this means that patent term is reduced from 20 years to 8 years. However, issuance of the innovation patent is virtually assured, and enforceability is also greatly enhanced.
In summary, this strategy provides a mechanism for achieving shorter term protection of non-inventive variations over the prior art.
This will be of particular interest to pharmaceutical clients which are looking for mechanisms to optimise Life Cycle Management (LCM). For example, the innovation patent system provides a mechanism for protecting novel, but non-inventive, formulations which have been developed late in the term of an earlier key patent. This can result in a de facto extension of term, albeit only for the novel formulation. However, this protection can be of great value where it covers the client’s commercial embodiment and extends protection beyond the original key patent’s term.
Commercially Important Inventions
When dealing with a commercially important invention, the prudent filing strategy is to file both a standard application and an application for an innovation patent. The innovation patent will issue very quickly and can optionally be certified in preparation for enforcement. This entire process can be completed with a couple of months of filing. Upon completion, the client is armed with an enforceable patent which is extremely difficult for a competitor to invalidate.
In the meantime, the standard application is left pending for as long as possible. Indeed, it is conceivable that the standard application might remain pending until close to the end of the 8 year term of the innovation patent.
If it becomes necessary to prosecute the standard application to issuance, then this is possible provided that the issued claims in the standard patent are not identical to the issued claims in the innovation patent. Alternatively, if it is desired to have identical claims issued in the standard patent, then it will be necessary to withdraw the innovation patent in order to avoid the double-patenting prohibition.
Emergence of an Infringer
Where an infringer emerges, and where a standard application remains pending, it is possible to file one or more divisional applications for an Innovation Patent. Each Innovation Patent can incorporate a claim which is novel over the closest known prior art. Litigation can then be commenced based on all of the Innovation Patents. The infringer is then faced with the difficult task of convincing a court that none of the novel features makes a substantial contribution to the working of the invention. In this scenario, the prospects of favourable settlement are high.
Summary
The innovation patent provides 8-year protection for inventions which are novel over the prior art, and where the novelty-conferring feature substantially contributes to the function of the invention.
There is no consideration whatsoever of the merit or contribution of the invention over the prior art.
The low standard for patentability makes it extremely difficult for a defendant to invalidate an innovation patent.
It is also noteworthy that the remedies available to the patentee for infringement of an innovation patent are identical to the remedies available to the patentee for infringement of a standard application.
In conclusion, an innovation patent is arguably the most pro-patentee patent available anywhere in the world. On this basis, it is perhaps surprising that only 4,481 innovation patent applications have been filed in the last 7 years. The authors believe that the low rate of filing of Innovation Patents is a result of most clients being unaware of this secondary type of patent in Australia, and the enormous value that the innovation patent system can offer.
In Takeda v. Mylan (07-1269;70), Alphapharm and Genpharm, along with Mylan and UDL Laboratories, tried to get out of paying the attorney fees. A district court found the case to be exceptional awarded attorney fees in a case relating to Hatch-Waxman challenges made by Alphapharm and Mylan in connection with Takeda’s U.S. Pat. 4,687,777.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said that because of the misconduct of Mylan and Alphapharm this was indeed an exceptional case. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the attorney fees, expenses, and expert fees to Takeda amounting to $11,400,000 from Mylan and $5,400,000 from Alphapharm, with interest.
The ’777 patent covers the anti-diabetic drug pioglitazone, for which Takeda has enjoyed commercial success under the name ACTOS®. Alphapharm and Mylan tried to get approval to produce generic versions of pioglitazone under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Takeda then sued Alphapharm and Mylan for infringement.
Regarding Alphapharm, the trial court held that the Paragraph IV certification letter was “so devoid of merit and so completely fail[ed] to establish a prima facie case of invalidity that it must be described as ‘baseless.’” Ouch!
The court also analyzed what it saw as Alphapharm’s litigation misconduct and found that this was “the exceptional case where an examination of the totality of the circumstances amply justifies, indeed compels, the award of attorneys’ fees.”
Then, the court hammered Mylan’s certification letter saying it was filed in bad faith and with no reasonable basis to claim the ’777 patent invalid. The court discussed how Mylan argued in its Paragraph IV letter that the invention of pioglitazone was obvious based on Takeda’s disclosure of a compound in the ’200 patent and Sohda II (referred to as compound 16 and compound 14, respectively) only to abandon this theory entirely during the litigation. In addition, the court discussed Takeda’s numerous allegations of litigation misconduct committed by Mylan in its pursuit of an inequitable conduct claim.
Alphapharm argued that its Paragraph IV letter was not baseless under structural obviousness law. Alphapharm said that its certification letter made out a prima facie case of obviousness and that, contrary to what the district court held, Alphapharm was not required to explain why a skilled artisan would have identified compound b as the lead compound in its certification letter.
The court did not think much of this argument, stating:
… the court methodically examined a number of shortcomings in Alphapharm’s Paragraph IV letter, which were made obvious by Alphapharm’s “constantly shifting set of arguments,” that supported the finding that the certification was baseless. … The court also catalogued scientific errors in Alphapharm’s certification letter that the court saw as “insidious” and as underscoring that Alphapharm “did not act with due care or in good faith” in filing its certification. Id. at 237. The court found that other assertions in Alphapharm’s Paragraph IV letter were baseless because of undisputed evidence of pioglitazone’s superiority and that Alphapharm abandoned these arguments at trial because “they were unsupportable, not because Alphapharm made a tactical decision regarding which argument should be emphasized at trial.”
Mylan argued that the district court based its finding of an exceptional case against Mylan on conjecture rather than requiring Takeda to show clear and convincing evidence. Mylan also argued that the fact that it ultimately did not win on its claims does not render this case exceptional and that the district court’s decision to allow Mylan to assert its inequitable conduct claim demonstrates that it was not frivolous.
What did the court think of Mylan’s position?
We conclude that the court did not commit clear error in finding that Mylan’s misconduct contributed to this being an exceptional case. In fact, Mylan’s invalidity argument in its certification letter appears even more baseless than Alphapharm’s. … We find it unsurprising, therefore, that the district court characterized Mylan’s defense of the merits of its Paragraph IV letter as “utterly frivolous.” In light of the scientific errors present in Mylan’s certification letter, the fact that the court was unmoved by Mylan’s decision not to pursue this obviousness claim at trial can hardly be deemed clear error.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that the patent on Plavix® will remain in force. The patent at issue is US Pat. No. 4,847,265, owned by Sanofi-Synthelabo, covers clopidogrel bisulfate, the active ingredient in Plavix®. Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex (07-1438).
Clopidogrel is the common name of the dextrorotatory isomer of the chemical compound named methyl alpha-5(4,5,6,7-tetrahydro(3,2-c)thienopyridyl)(2-chlorophenyl) -acetate. The product has the property of inhibiting the aggregation of blood platelets, and is used to treat or prevent blood-thrombotic events such as heart attacks and strokes. Claim 3 of the patent is for:
Hydrogen sulfate of the dextro-rotatory isomer of methyl alpha-5(4,5,6,7-tetrahydro(3,2-c)thienopyridyl)(2-chlorophenyl)-acetate substantially separated from the levo-rotatory isomer.
Sanofi sued after Apotex filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for FDA approval to sell clopidogrel bisulfate, along with a paragraph IV certification that the ’265 patent is invalid. A proposed settlement fell apart, the statutory stay expired, the FDA approved the Apotex ANDA, and Apotex starting selling its generic clopidogrel bisulfate product.
Sanofi then moved for a preliminary injunction, noting that infringement was conceded by Apotex. The district court found that Sanofi was likely to succeed on the merits of the validity and enforceability of the ’265 patent, granting the injunction. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings and sent it back so that the district court could review all aspects at trial and the district court ruled that the ’265 patent is valid and enforceable.
This appeal is focused on the question of patentability of this dextrorotatory isomer in view of its known racemate described in earlier Sanofi patents, specifically, Sanofi’s US Pat. No. 4,529,596 and Canadian Pat. No. 1,194,875. Both reference patents are derived from the same French priority filing and are prior art against the ’265 patent.
Sanofi discovered that certain compounds of the class known as thienopyridines (compounds having a thiene ring fused to a pyridine ring) have the property of inhibiting blood platelet aggregation. Sanofi initially synthesized and evaluated several hundred chemical modifications and derivatives of thienopyridines, seeking optimum anti-platelet aggregation properties with minimal undesirable effects.
They eventually selected for development the compound “ticlopidine.” After development, ticlopidine was approved in the US for use as an anti-thrombotic agent. This was approved but had possible adverse effects of rarely occurring but serious blood disorders, neutropenia and thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, associated with prolonged usage of ticlopidine.
Sanofi then synthesized and evaluated several hundred additional thienopyridine derivatives, including a class of compounds having the following general structure, wherein one of the hydrogen atoms on the bridge carbon atom (marked with an asterisk), is replaced with an ester, carboxylic acid, or amide group. This class is the subject of the ’596 patent (and the counterpart Canadian ’875 patent), and had good anti–platelet aggregation properties.
Focusing on the ’596 patent, the specification includes twenty-one examples of specific compounds, including a compound designated as PCR 4099. This compound has the chemical name methyl alpha-5(4,5,6,7-tetrahydro(3,2-c)thieno pyridyl)(2-chlorophenyl)-acetate, with the acronym MATTPCA. PCR 4099 as the hydrochloride salt was selected for commercial development as a potential replacement for ticlopidine in light of its improved platelet inhibition and toxicity profile.
However, PCR 4099 still raised toxicity concerns, for at very high doses it caused convulsions in laboratory animals. Thus the research efforts continued, concurrently with the clinical and commercial development of PCR 4099. Sanofi states that about 1500 compounds in this general class were synthesized, of which about 600, including PCR 4099, were chiral thienopyridines.
Enantiomers are spatial isomers, also called stereoisomers, identified and distinguished by their optical characteristics when a purified solution of the separated isomers is exposed to plane-polarized light. Enantiomers generally are formed in equal amounts, to produce what is called a racemate; the racemate is optically neutral.
Believing that there was no advantage to separation of the enantiomers of thienopyridines, and no other racemates were separated until November 1985 when Sanofi then determined the biological properties of the enantiomers of PCR 4099, and found that they had the rare characteristic of “absolute stereoselectivity”: the dextrorotatory enantiomer provided all of the favorable antiplatelet activity but with no significant neurotoxicity, while the levorotatory enantiomer produced no antiplatelet activity but virtually all of the neurotoxicity. This kind of stereoselectivity is rare.
Sanofi filed a patent application directed to clopidogrel and certain salts and pharmaceutical compositions. The ’265 specification explains that the racemate of the same chemical formula was described in the earlier French ’247 patent, which corresponds to the earlier U.S. ’596 patent. The ’265 patent discusses the unusual stereoselectivity of the biological properties as between the dextrorotatory and the levorotatory enantiomers. The US patent examiner, who had also examined the ’596 patent, allowed the claims after requiring that the ’265 claims make clear that the dextro- and levo- enantiomers are “substantially separated.”
Apotex appealed on the issues of anticipation and obviousness.
Claimed subject matter is “anticipated” when it is not new; that is, when it was previously known. Invalidation on this ground requires that every element and limitation of the claim was previously described in a single prior art reference, either expressly or inherently, so as to place a person of ordinary skill in possession of the invention.
Apotex argued that the reference shows the specific racemate PCR 4099 and states that the compounds in the reference have enantiomers and that the enantiomers are included in the invention. Apotex claimed that the properties of the enantiomers of PCR 4099 are inherently and necessarily present in its known racemate, such that when the enantiomers are separated the previously observed properties are “immediately recognized” in one or the other enantiomer.
The question hinged on whether a generic disclosure necessarily anticipates everything within the genus, and recognized that the answer depends on the factual aspects of the specific disclosure and the particular products at issue. In this case the district court said the references’ general statements that these compounds consist of enantiomers didn’t make an anticipating disclosure of the separated dextrorotatory enantiomer of PCR 4099.
Apotex also tried arguing that although the reference did not state that the disclosed compound was a racemate, it would have been known to one of ordinary skill that synthetically produced chiral compounds are racemic.
This was knocked down:
The district court did not clearly err in finding that the statements in the ’596 patent and its Canadian counterpart that the products therein consist of enantiomers are not a description of the specific dextrorotatory enantiomer clopidogrel or a suggestion of its unusual stereospecific properties. The knowledge that enantiomers may be separated is not “anticipation” of a specific enantiomer that has not been separated, identified, and characterized. The district court correctly held that neither the ’596 patent nor its Canadian counterpart contains an anticipating disclosure of the subject matter of claim 3 of the ’265 patent.
The court also looked at the question of obviousness. For chemical compounds, the structure of the compound and its properties are inseparable considerations in the obviousness determination. Previous case law established that when dealing with analytical procedures where there is a close structural similarity between a new chemical compound and prior art compounds, it is generally deemed to create a prima facie case of obviousness, shifting to the patentee the burden of coming forward with evidence of nonobviousness.
Apotex argued that the recognition in the prior art that PCR 4099 is composed of enantiomers outweighs the effect of any unexpected or unpredictable properties of the separated dextrorotatory enantiomer.
The court also shot this down:
The determination of obviousness is dependent on the facts of each case. See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18. In Forest Laboratories, 501 F.3d at 1269, this court affirmed that the (+) enantiomer of citalopram would not have been obvious in light of the known racemate, when it was shown that the therapeutic properties of the (+) enantiomer were unexpected. In contrast, in Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Lupin, Ltd. 499 F.3d 1293, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2007), this court held that the ramipril isomer’s potency was “precisely what one would expect, as compared to a mixture containing other, inert or near-inert stereoisomers.” Apotex argues that Aventis is the closer analogy, but the evidence was directly contrary to that position. The district court entered extensive findings in this case on the unexpected and unpredictable properties of clopidogrel, and there was no contrary evidence suggesting, based on the prior art, that the stereoselective properties were “precisely what one would expect,” as in Aventis.
Update: As noted in the comments, Teflon® is a brand of poly(tetrafluoroethylene) or poly(tetrafluoroethene) (PTFE), a synthetic fluoropolymer used as a non-stick coating for pans and other cookware, and is registered trademark of E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company.
Patent attorneys are a diverse bunch so there’s no one definitive list for gift ideas. Some litigators are always on the go — going to court, depositions and other meetings. Others spend hours upon hours in their offices — generally, working at the computer. Thus, we tried to come up with a list that is versatile and meant only to stimulate some ideas and discussion (and, no, we’re not going to suggest the EyeClops Night Vision Infrared Stealth Goggles). So, sit back and take some time to look around to see what gifts you might like for the patent lawyer (or inventor or entrepreneur) on your list:
The iPhone $199 – Number one on the list has to be the Apple iPhone. Yes, we know it requires a 2-year indentured servitude agreement with the evil overlord AT&T to use it but you can’t beat the functionality. Besides the essentials like email, contacts and calendar, I have this stuffed with hundreds of songs, several audiobooks and even a couple of full movies (useful for long plane trips). Don’t even get me started on podcasts. This gift absolutely requires a visit to the Apple iPhone APP Store for downloading the best additions. My newest? Public Radio Tuner by American Public Radio. Non-Mac alternative: BlackBerry Storm.
iTunes Gift Card $50 – I’m against gift cards in general but if you’re going with an iPhone/iPod — or even if you’re not — you can’t go wrong with an iTunes card. While I love all the great free podcasts, there are always items to purchase. Alternative: Apple 1GB iPod Shuffle.
Cole Haan Penny Air Loafers $211 – These are everything a patent attorney would want — a sleek, classic penny loafer with patent leather, of course. As one of my colleagues insisted, “shoes must be cute and functional!” For the not-so-practical patent attorney, you can always go with Manolo Blahnik from Barneys.
Garmin GPSMap 60CSx GPS $279 – This is perfect for the patent attorney. It’s chock full of high tech and requires going outdoors to use it (for some much-needed exercise). This is a device that can provide hours of geek fun just loading maps. Hopefully, they will make it outside, too. For those strapped in an automobile, try the Garmin nüvi 760 Bluetooth Portable GPS Automobile Navigator.
Ecoist Limited Edition Candy Wrapper Hobo Handbag $176 – One of my female colleagues said that she really likes eco-products and especially recommends the Ecoist handbags. These are made from recycled candy wrappers, food packages, soda labels, subway maps, newspapers, and other waste-bound materials and turned into functional, durable and eye-catching handbags. What’s not to love?
Tea of the Month Club $80– OK, we love coffee (obviously) but patent attorneys are often under too much stress so some soothing tea is a really great refreshment. Nothing calms the nerves like some freshly brewed loose leaf teas — greens, blacks, whites, oolongs, you name it. I think the very best tea is Mariage Freres Marco Polo. Can’t break the java addition? Try the Starbucks Coffee Collection.
Canon PowerShot 8MP Digital Camera with Image Stabilized Zoom $159 – There are plenty of cameras that take better pictures. There are plenty of cameras that are small. This one is a solid, reliable, and stylish point-and-shoot ultracompact digital camera that produces high-quality images. It is not for Ansel Adams. It is great for bloggers to keep in a pocket when out at meetings — or just pictures of the kids when out and about. For more practicality, get your loved one to back up their important documents with a WD My Passport Essential 320 GB USB 2.0 Portable Hard Drive. It’s for their own good.
Wii Fit & 5 in 1 kit $279 -If you don’t mind looking silly on the the Wii Balance Board — and it requires a Wii console to play — this might just be what it takes to get you off the couch. I haven’t tried this but it looks fun with lots of different activities, including aerobics, yoga, muscle stretches and balance oriented games. When you’re ready to ramp things up, try the Kettler Racer GT Indoor Cycle Trainer.
That’s the list. It’s a good place to start and applies equally well to lawyers, inventors and business folks alike. Note, I was going to include a list of gifts for administrative assistants but, after some poking around, I found that it just set off a flamestorm over at Above the Law and corporette. While I think any of the above gifts would be fine for assistants, too, the consensus seems to be that AmEx cards are best. Please suggest your own preferences and gift ideas in the comments.
Editor-in-Chief Barista Stephen Jenei is a patent attorney and Owner of Jenei LLC. When not serving up patent chat over a steaming cup of java, he's handling a diverse intellectual property practice in the biotechnology, pharmaceutical and chemical fields. More info @ Jenei LLC
It’s been a wild ride of a year and it is with mixed emotions that we bring 2008 to a close. With 228 posts and 6 million hits, a lot has gone into Patent Baristas and I hope this only improves next year.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that the patent on Plavix® will remain in force. The patent at issue is 
Cole Haan Penny Air Loafers $211
Ecoist Limited Edition Candy Wrapper Hobo Handbag $176
Timex Expedition E-Compass Titanium Watch $111
Tea of the Month Club $80
Laser Projection, USB Enabled Virtual Keyboard $179
