Author Archives: Kenan Farrell

Honoring an author. Attorneys among those preserving Vonnegut’s memory.

28 Monday Dec 2009

Posted by in Artists, Authors, Indiana, Indianapolis, Intellectual Property, Just for Fun, KLF Legal, Nonprofit, What I'm Reading

≈ Leave a comment

This blog author was featured recently in an Indiana Lawyer article about an organization I’m involved with, the Kurt Vonnegut Memorial Library.

The Kurt Vonnegut Memorial Library Foundation is a public benefit, nonprofit organization championing the literary, artistic, and cultural contributions of the late writer, artist and Indiana native Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. The Library Foundation is creating a library that will also serve as a cultural and educational resource center, functioning as a museum, art gallery, and reading room for readers, writers, and students. In addition, the library will support language and visual arts education for the local community.

Click here for full story by Rebecca Berfanger, Indiana Lawyer.

U.S. Patent Office Announces Program for Accelerated Review of Green Technology Patent Applications

11 Friday Dec 2009

Posted by in Federal Initiatives, Intellectual Property, Patent, Tech Developments

≈ Leave a comment

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently launched the Green Technology Pilot Program to accelerate the development and deployment of green technologies, help create green jobs, and promote U.S. competitiveness in the clean technology sector. In the press release announcing the Pilot Program, the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO, David Kappos explained, “Every day an important green tech innovation is hindered from coming to market is another day we harm our planet and another day lost in creating green businesses and green jobs.”

According to its own statistics, the USPTO takes on average 30 months to issue an initial office action for green technology patent applications and approximately 40 months to make a final determination on the patentability of such applications. In the normal process, applications are taken up for examination based on their filing date. Recognizing that over a three and half year wait is too long in the green technology sector, the Pilot Program provides a mechanism for green technology patent applications to be advanced, out of turn, to examination without having to pay any additional fees or provide any additional examination support documentation. The USPTO estimates that this Pilot Program will reduce the examination time of these applications on average by one year.

The Pilot Program broadly defines the term “green technologies” as technologies that pertain to environmental quality, energy conservation, development of renewable energy resources, or greenhouse gas emission reduction. Despite this broad definition, the USPTO currently requires that a patent application be classified in one of 79 specific U.S. patent classifications outlined in the Pilot Program to be eligible.

The Pilot Program only applies to non-provisional utility applications filed prior to December 8, 2009 that have yet to be examined. Applications that are either filed after December 8, 2009 or already being examined are not eligible for the Pilot Program. The Pilot Program is set to expire on December 8, 2010 and the USPTO only guarantees that it will accept the first 3,000 petitions to make an application special under the Pilot Program. Thereafter, the USPTO will evaluate whether the Pilot Program should be extended based on the USPTO’s workload and available resources. Thus, time is of the essence for those wanting to take advantage of the Pilot Program.

While there are limitations on the number and type of claims that can be included in the application and a requirement that an applicant waive its right to object to a restriction requirement, the Pilot Program does provide an inexpensive mechanism to expedite the examination of a green tech patent application. Such an expedited examination can prove beneficial to those looking to enforce their patent rights as quickly as possible and/or those looking for funding options.

Source: Inside INdiana

The Official Notice of the Pilot Program can be found at 74 Fed. Reg. 64666 (Dec. 8, 2009) and the USPTO Press Release for the Pilot program can be found at www.uspto.gov/news/pr/2009/09_33.jsp.

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Vision Center Northwest, Inc. v. Vision Value

12 Thursday Nov 2009

Posted by in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Vision Center Northwest, Inc. v. Vision Valuewhite
No: 3:07-CV-183 RM (November 3, 2009)
U.S. District Court, N.D. of Indiana
Before: Miller

TRADEMARK; ABANDONMENT (Where a trademark owner’s only use of a mark for ten years was in a white pages listing, that mark is deemed abandoned.)

Opinion (Miller): Plaintiff operated a vision business under the name Value Visions by Dr. Tavel, until 1996, when plaintiff changed its name to Dr. Tavel. Defendant changed its name to Vision Value in 2007, and Plaintiff promptly sued for trademark infringement. The parties both moved for summary judgment. Defendant contended that Plaintiff abandoned the Value Visions mark as a result of more than ten years of nonuse. Plaintiff contended that it used the mark in the white pages during the entire ten year period. The court held that Plaintiff’s white pages listing was not bona fide use, and that Plaintiff brought forth no other evidence to show use or intent to use. Accordingly, the court held that Plaintiff had abandoned the mark and granted summary judgment for Defendant.

Source: Willamette Law Online [Summarized by Anthony Halderman]

For full opinion:
2009 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 103680
2009 WL 3669647

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Norwood Promotional Products v. KustomKoozies

11 Wednesday Nov 2009

Posted by in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Trademark

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

Norwood Promotional Products v. KustomKoozies, LLC

Court Case Number: 1:09-cv-01378-LJM-JMS

File Date: Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Plaintiff: Norwood Promotional Products, LLC

Plaintiff Counsel: Jonathan G. Polak, Keirian A. Brown of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP

Defendant: KustomKoozies, LLC, Steve Liddle

Cause: Trademark Infringement, Federal Trademark Dilution, Unfair Competition, Breach of Contract and Corrective Advertising Damages

Court: Southern District of Indiana

Judge: Judge Larry J. McKinney

Referred To: Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson

Indiana Patent Income Tax Exemption – IC 6-2-3-21.7

04 Wednesday Nov 2009

Posted by in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Legislation, Patent, Tech Developments

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Inventors, patent owners, and their lawyers and accountants should be aware of the Indiana Patent Income Exemption, Indiana Code 6-3-2-21.7.

The exemption aims to encourage innovation by giving entrepreneurs and small businesses a break on Indiana state income taxes. Indiana was the first state to offer this type of incentive.  In an effort to strengthen the state’s existing focus on biotech, pharmaceutical, medical device and equipment companies, the law strives to encourage new patents from Indiana companies and to make the state more attractive to new companies looking for a profitable marketplace.

The law grants a tax exemption on patent income, which includes licensing fees, royalties, patent sale or patent-covered- product sales. Note that the exemption is available only to businesses with less than 500 employees and only covers utility and plant patents, since design patents focus on ornamental features and exclude functional innovations.

IC 6-3-2-21.7
Exemption for certain income derived from patents
Sec. 21.7. (a) This section applies to a qualified patent issued to a taxpayer after December 31, 2007.
(b) As used in this section, “invention” has the meaning set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100(a).
(c) As used in this section, “qualified patent” means:
(1) a utility patent issued under 35 U.S.C. 101; or
(2) a plant patent issued under 35 U.S.C. 161;
after December 31, 2007, for an invention resulting from a development process conducted in Indiana. The term does not include a design patent issued under 35 U.S.C. 171.
(d) As used in this section, “qualified taxpayer” means a taxpayer that on the effective filing date of the claimed invention:
(1) is either:
(A) an individual or corporation, if the number of employees of the individual or corporation, including affiliates as specified in 13 CFR 121.103, does not exceed five hundred (500) persons; or
(B) a nonprofit organization or nonprofit corporation as

specified in:
(i) 37 CFR 1.27(a)(3)(ii)(A) or 37 CFR 1.27(a)(3)(ii)(B); or
(ii) IC 23-17; and
(2) is domiciled in Indiana.
(e) Subject to subsections (g) and (h), in determining adjusted gross income or taxable income under IC 6-3-1-3.5 or IC 6-5.5-1-2, a qualified taxpayer is entitled to an exemption from taxation under IC 6-3-1 through IC 6-3-7 for the following:
(1) Licensing fees or other income received for the use of a qualified patent.
(2) Royalties received for the infringement of a qualified patent.
(3) Receipts from the sale of a qualified patent.
(4) Subject to subsection (f), income from the taxpayer’s own use of the taxpayer’s qualified patent to produce the claimed invention.
(f) The exemption provided by subsection (e)(4) may not exceed the fair market value of the licensing fees or other income that would be received by allowing use of the qualified taxpayer’s qualified patent by someone other than the taxpayer. The fair market value referred to in this subsection must be determined in each taxable year in which the qualified taxpayer claims an exemption under subsection (e)(4).
(g) The total amount of exemptions claimed under this section by a qualified taxpayer in a taxable year may not exceed five million dollars ($5,000,000).
(h) A taxpayer may not claim an exemption under this section with respect to a particular qualified patent for more than ten (10) taxable years. Subject to the provisions of this section, the following amount of the income, royalties, or receipts described in subsection (e) from a particular qualified patent is exempt:
(1) Fifty percent (50%) for each of the first five (5) taxable years in which the exemption is claimed for the qualified patent.
(2) Forty percent (40%) for the sixth taxable year in which the exemption is claimed for the qualified patent.
(3) Thirty percent (30%) for the seventh taxable year in which the exemption is claimed for the qualified patent.
(4) Twenty percent (20%) for the eighth taxable year in which the exemption is claimed for the qualified patent.
(5) Ten percent (10%) each year for the ninth and tenth taxable year in which the exemption is claimed for the qualified patent.
(6) No exemption under this section for the particular qualified patent after the eleventh taxable year in which the exemption is claimed for the qualified patent.
(i) To receive the exemption provided by this section, a qualified taxpayer must claim the exemption on the qualified taxpayer’s annual state tax return or returns in the manner prescribed by the department. The qualified taxpayer shall submit to the department all information that the department determines is necessary for the determination of the exemption provided by this section.

(j) On or before December 1 of each year, the department shall provide an evaluation report to the legislative council, the budget committee, and the Indiana economic development corporation. The evaluation report must contain the following:
(1) The number of taxpayers claiming an exemption under this section.
(2) The sum of all the exemptions claimed under this section.
(3) The North American Industry Classification System code for each taxpayer claiming an exemption under this section.
(4) Any other information the department considers appropriate, including the number of qualified patents for which an exemption was claimed under this section.
The report required under this subsection must be in an electronic format under IC 5-14-6.

For a full breakdown of the law,  see IP Today.

indianaflag