This voice narrated slideshow presents a summary of patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets in the United States.

In this video, you will understand how to use trademarks, patents, and copyrights to protect different aspects of your business.

A design patent protects the shape of an item. Design patents are valid for 14 years from the date of issue.

What type of patent should you apply for regarding your invention? Utility Patents are for machines, processes, among others. Design Patents cover the ornamental aspects of useful objects. A Provisional Patent gives you a chance to wait for one year before you file for a Utility Patent.

Video explains what a trade secret is. It also explains the requirements for securing trade secrets as intellectual property rights.

In this book written by Britten Sessions, you will learn how to protect inventions through patents.

This book written by David Smith, explains the role of patents in business today, discussing the strategies adopted by corporate decision-makers involved in various aspects of the patent wars with special emphasis placed on the high-tech sector and the patent trading marketplace.

A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A trademark is a word, name, symbol, or device that is used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others. A servicemark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product. Copyright is a form of protection provided to the authors of "original works of authorship" including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works, both published and unpublished.

This chapter of this book written by Britten Sessions provides an overview of intellectual property, including where patents fit into the general landscape of protection; as well as emphasizes the need to take a broad perspective when it comes to protecting inventions.

This is a sample from the Patent Practice book by Britten Sessions. The entire book is available and referred to extensively in the certificate course.

A trademark identifies the source of a good or service. Trademark rights come from actual use in commerce or by registering your trademark with the USPTO.

This video highlights the importance of trademarks for a business that sells products or offers services.

What is a trademark? What should you consider when choosing a trademark? What are the different types of trademarks? Why are some trademarks refused registration? What makes a trademark a good one to register?

Oral argument in U.S. Supreme Court. The office cited the Disparagement Clause of the Lanham Act of 1946, which prohibits trademarks that “[consist] of or [comprise] immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter"..

Attorney explains why "Merely Descriptive" marks are evaluated in the context of the goods and services.

Attorney explains why there are some instances where descriptive terms can be used as a trademark. Let's look at a case study of the mark FLOR for carpeted floor tiles.

Attorney explains the different types of trademarks.

Attorney explains how a shape can be registered as a trademark.

A trademark is generally a word, phrase, symbol, or design, or a combination of these elements, that identifies and distinguishes the source of one party's goods from those of others.

How do trademarks, copyrights, and patents differ from each other?

Although this is not a requirement before you file your trademark application, it is useful to search the USPTO database to find out if any mark that already has been registered or applied for, is similar to your mark, and if it has been used on related product or for related services.

A trademark gives the trademark owner the exclusive right to use the mark. It also allows the owner to prevent others from using a similar mark that can be confusing for the general public.

As a business, you want your products or services to not only stand out from the crowd but also identifiable through a distinctive brand. These slogans, symbols, and designs are collectively known as a "mark," either a trademark (for products), a service mark (for service-based businesses), or a trade dress (distinctive packaging, for example).

In this article, you will understand the differences between trademark protection by use and trademark protection by registration.

Are some trademarks stronger than others? Can a business name be trademarked? Can a website or domain name be trademarked? Are trademarks governed by federal or state law?

This article outlines the process for applying for, and maintaining your trademark.

This article provides information that will enable you to file your trademark application online.

An examining attorney sends an Office action to notify an applicant about issues with his or her application. This type of action will include the reason why registration is being refused or what requirements must be satisfied. In most cases, the applicant must respond to an Office action within 6 months from the date the Office action is issued or the USPTO will abandon the application, the application fee will not be refunded, and your mark will not register.

To keep a registration alive, the registration owner must file required maintenance documents at regular intervals. Failure to file the required maintenance documents during the specified time periods will result in the cancellation of the U.S. trademark registration or invalidation of the U.S. extension of protection.

During the examination of a pending trademark application as well as after a trademark has registered, the owner of a trademark may change for various reasons. Some trademark owners transfer their ownership of a mark to another entity, which is called an assignment. In addition, some trademark owners change their names while retaining ownership. In both instances, the USPTO advises trademark owners to record the ownership transfer (assignment) or (name change) with the Assignment Recordation Branch of the USPTO.

The Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks -- the Madrid Protocol -- is one of two treaties comprising the Madrid System for international registration of trademarks. The protocol is a filing treaty and not a substantive harmonization treaty. It provides a cost-effective and efficient way for trademark holders -- individuals and businesses -- to ensure protection for their marks in multiple countries through the filing of one application with a single office, in one language, with one set of fees, in one currency.

What are the benefits of a federal trademark registration? How much does it cost to apply for a trademark application? What is the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS)? You will get answers to these questions and more in this piece prepared by the USPTO.

Trademark infringement is the unauthorized use of a trademark or service mark on or in connection with goods and/or services in a manner that is likely to cause confusion, deception, or mistake about the source of the goods and/or services.

A cease and desist (or demand) letter/email is correspondence that states or suggests that you are potentially infringing the trademark of another and demands that you stop using, or consider stopping use of, the accused mark.

A trademark lawsuit begins when the trademark owner files a complaint with a court alleging trademark infringement. Among other things, the complaint names the parties involved and sets forth the allegations that form the basis of the lawsuit.

The Guardian’s article on a trademark case: Nestlé, and Cadbury have been in a tit-for-tat battle over the distinctiveness of their chocolate products.

BBC’s article on a trademark case involving Lindt & Spruengli and Haribo: Swiss chocolate maker Lindt & Spruengli has defeated a legal challenge from rival confectioner Haribo, which sought to stop it making its gold chocolate bears. Haribo claimed the Lindt version was a violation of its "Gold Bear" logo. Germany's Federal Court of Justice ruled Lindt's bear was neither a violation of Haribo's trademark or an imitation of its fruit gum sweets.

BBC’s article on a trademark case involving Apple, and a Chinese company, Xintong Tiandi: Apple has lost a trademark fight in China, meaning that Xintong Tiandi, a firm which sells handbags and other leather goods can continue to use the name "IPHONE".

BBC’s article on a trademark case: A Beijing court has ruled in favor of Facebook and against a Chinese company which had registered "face book" as a separate trademark.

NPR’s article on a trademark dispute involving the National Park Service, and its former contractor, Delaware North as well as Yosemite Hospitality: Delaware North had trademarked many of the names of properties it managed at the Yosemite National Park. When Delaware North, lost its bid for a new contract to manage the properties at the Yosemite National Park, to Yosemite Hospitality, Delaware North requested Yosemite Hospitality to pay for the trademarked names in order for the properties to continue to “bear” the trademarked names.

Apple, and. Apple Corps, a multimedia corporation, were the main participants of a legal battle that lasted from 1978 until 2006 when the High Court of Justice in England ruled in favor of Apple (known as Apple Computer at the time).

The Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional that the USPTO blocks marks such as "the Slants" from federal trademark registration on the grounds of freedom of speech.

The rock band has sued the Colorado brewery Oskar Blues, accusing it of trademark infringement for selling an ale named Guns ‘N’ Rosé without permission.

Copyrights protect a particular expression of an idea.

Video introduces the basic legal protections of a copyright.

Video introduces the requirements to receive copyright protection.

Video introduces the rule that under some circumstances a person may use copyrighted material without permission for news, criticism, commentary, education, and research.

Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams sang the song “Blurred Lines”. T.I. also made an appearance on the song. Reports indicated that the song “Blurred Lines” made over $16.6 million, which was split between the artists and their respective record labels. A large sum of over $5 million was left to both Thicke and Williams, while T.I. earned over $700,000 for his appearance on the song. The remainder of the profit was split between Interscope, Universal Music Group and Star Trak Entertainment. A jury found that the song “Blurred Lines” infringed on the copyright of “Got to Give It Up, and awarded $7.3 million to Marvin Gaye’s family, in a lawsuit involving Robin Thicke and Pharell Williams and the Marvin Gaye family.

This article explains what a copyright is. It also outlines the rights of the owner of a copyright.

This article outlines categories of works that are afforded protection under the copyright law.

Generally, only the author of a work can claim copyright. Once the work is completed in "fixed" form (e.g. a story written down on paper, a computer program saved on a disk, a song recorded on tape), the copyright becomes the property of the creating author.

New York Times article on the "Fair Use" doctrine and Google’s digital library: The U.S. Supreme Court refused to revive a challenge to Google’s digital library of millions of books, turning down an appeal from authors who said the project amounted to copyright infringement on a mass scale.

Under the doctrine of "fair use", the law allows the use of portions of copyrighted work without permission from the owner.

The Guardian article on the “Fair Use” doctrine and usage of copyrighted materials on YouTube: This article looks at a ruling from a three-judge panel in California. The import of the ruling is that before copyright holders asks anyone that uploaded content to take it down, copyright holders must consider if their intellectual property is being used on YouTube or elsewhere online in a way that falls under US law as ‘fair use’. The ruling also indicated that if an entity misuses legal takedown notices, it is taking a financial risk of its own.

Los Angeles Times article on a Copyright case: None of the companies that have collected royalties on the "Happy Birthday" song for the past 80 years held a valid copyright claim to one of the most popular songs in history, a federal judge in Los Angeles ruled. In a stunning reversal of decades of copyright claims, the judge ruled that Warner/Chappell never had the right to charge for the use of the "Happy Birthday To You" song. Warner had been enforcing a copyright since 1988, when it bought Birch Tree Group, the successor to Clayton F. Summy Co., which claimed the original disputed copyright.

The Washington Post article on a Copyright suit: When David Slater left his camera unattended on a tripod on the Tangkoko Batuangus Nature Reserve on the island of Sulawesi, Indonesia, Naruto, a Macque “monkey” snapped what came to be known as “monkey selfies.” The selfies were a sensation, taking the Internet by storm, and Slater later included them in a book called “Wildlife Personalities.” A federal lawsuit filed by the animal-rights group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), alleged that Slater infringed on Naruto’s copyright.

An article regarding the ruling of a U.S. Federal Appeals court concerning Google’s online library.

Reuters article on a Copyright case: Chief U.S. District Judge George King in Los Angeles ruled that Warner/Chappell, the music publishing arm of privately owned Warner Music Group, did not own a copyright to the “Happy Birthday to You” song lyrics.

In this unusual case, the court ruled that finding a photo on the Internet and then using it without permission on a commercial website can be considered fair use.

This voice narrated slideshow outlines the types of inventions that are patentable. It also outlines some of the common reasons the Patent Office gives for declining Patent applications.

In order for an invention to be patentable, it must be new, useful and non-obvious.

In this video, you will find out what is patentable under U.S. Patent law.

The law surrounding the patentability of software patents has changed significantly in recent years. This video discusses the patentability of software inventions in the U.S. and explains how hardware inventions are more patentable under the current patent rules.

Video discusses the United States Supreme Court case of Alice v. CLS which deals with patentability of abstract ideas and, indirectly, software patents.

The patent law specifies the general field of subject matter that can be patented and the conditions under which a patent may be obtained.

In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented if: “(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention” or “(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued [by the U.S.] or in an application for patent published or deemed published [by the U.S.], in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”

The "Alice" case has had a significant impact on the patentability of software inventions. The Court held that patent law should not restrain abstract ideas that are the "building blocks of human ingenuity" and held all of Alice's claims ineligible for patent protection.

This case brought the first amendment into conflict with patent rights. Judge Mayer was concerned that its claims "could reasonably be read to cover most methods of screening for harmful content while data is being transmitted over a network." Notably, he concluded that "[e]ssential First Amendment freedoms are abridged when the Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") is permitted to balkanize the Internet, granting patent owners the right to exact heavy taxes on widely-used conduits for online expression."

This voice narrated slideshow shares insight regarding patents. It compares the usefulness of patents against Trade Secrets. It addresses issues regarding Patent Claims, the Patent Cooperation Treaty, the term of patents, among other issues.

A patent gives you the right to stop others from making, using, or selling the patented invention, for 20 years starting from your original filing date at the Patent Office.

A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Generally, the term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance fees.

The patent is issued in the name of the United States under the seal of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and is either signed by the Director of the USPTO or is electronically written thereon and attested by an Office official. The patent contains a grant to the patentee, and a printed copy of the specification and drawing is annexed to the patent and forms a part of it.

Chapter 4 of this book written by Britten Sessions focuses on “Utility Patents”.

This article provides an overview of Utility Patents. It also briefly describes the Utility Patent application process.

This article provides an overview of Design Patents. It also outlines how Design Patents are different from Utility Patents.

The patent laws provide for the granting of design patents to any person who has invented any new and non-obvious ornamental design for an article of manufacture. The design patent protects only the appearance of an article, but not its structural or functional features.

This article provides an overview of Plant Patents. Plant patents are available for the invention or discovery of a new and distinct plant. In order to receive patent protection for a plant, the applicant must be able to reproduce the plant asexually.

The law provides for the granting of a patent to anyone who has invented or discovered and asexually reproduced any distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber-propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state.

New York Times article on Plant Patents and Monsanto.

This video presents the argument that patent claims that are concise, and perhaps readily understood by a jury, are often most effective. However, since the America Invents Act a large percentage of short patent claims have been invalidated in the Inter-Parte Review process by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), an administrative law body of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) which decides issues of patentability. Longer claims with more elements seem to withstand inter-parte review challenges more effectively today.

In this video, you will get acquainted with the basics of how to read and understand the claims of a patent, as well as how to figure out infringement.

An integral part of a patent application is the claims. In this chapter of the book, Patent Practice Skills and Strategies, written by Britten Sessions, you will learn about the elements of a claim, as well as how to draft effective claims.

This article explains the basic skills required for drafting patent claims and shows why this is a job best left to experts. The claims are perhaps the most important part of the patent, and there are various ways of constructing claims that will stand up to examination during prosecution and stand up to the rigors of litigation.

This video discusses the patent prosecution process, and highlights how the rules can seem a little surprising to an independent observer.

A utility patent protects a new invention or improvements on existing inventions which are functional. Utility patents are issued to any functional new inventions or improvements on a machine, process, product or to the composition of matter. This video describes the various components of a utility patent application.

What are the key provisions of the new patent reforms? What impact does the patent reforms have on the patent wars, litigation, patent values, innovation and startup entrepreneurship?

Former President of the U.S., Barack Obama signed the America Invents Act into law. Video provides the views of former U.S. President, Obama, among others regarding the America Invents Act.

On March 16, 2013, a change occurred in U.S. patent law. The United States moved from a first-to-invent patent system to one that issues patents to the first inventor to file.

This is the second video in a series of four that cover the change in patent law to first-inventor-to-file. Here you will find a brief discussion of the exceptions to prior art as described in the first video.

This is the third video in a series of four that cover the change in patent law to first-inventor-to-file. Here you will find a further discussion of what constitutes prior art under the new law.

This is the fourth video in a series of four that cover the change in patent law to first-inventor-to-file. Here you will find a brief discussion of the exceptions to prior art as described in the third video.

When filing a patent application, there are certain deadlines to consider. Missing deadlines can lead to the application being deemed abandoned. This video discusses some of the important deadlines.

How long does it take to get a patent?

Following passage of the America Invents Act, the USPTO now provides ways to fast track or accelerate patent examination.

This article outlines the process for applying for, and maintaining your patent.

This chapter of the book, Patent Practice Skills and Strategies, written by Britten Sessions reviews USPTO procedures regarding Patent Prosecution as well as the types of rejections issued.

A USPTO patent examiner may issue several different types of official letters about your application. This article provides a description of each type and information on how to respond. It is very important to carefully read the USPTO correspondence to understand what type of response is needed and the time period for filing one.

The preparation of an application for patent and the conducting of the proceedings in the United States Patent and Trademark Office to obtain the patent is an undertaking requiring the knowledge of patent law and rules and Office practice and procedures, as well as knowledge of the scientific or technical matters involved in the particular invention. Inventors may prepare their own applications and file them in the USPTO and conduct the proceedings themselves, but unless they are familiar with these matters or study them in detail, they may get into considerable difficulty. Most inventors employ the services of registered patent attorneys or patent agents. The law gives the USPTO the power to make rules and regulations governing conduct and the recognition of patent attorneys and agents to practice before the USPTO.

The USPTO has established procedures under which the examination of a patent application may be accelerated.

The USPTO offers "Track One" for prioritized examination of your utility and plant patent applications.

Video explains how the Inter Partes Review process of the United States Patent and Trademark Office works.

Prior art constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality.

Former Chief Judge Randall Rader explains why we need new hero's to rescue the US patent system.

In this article, you will get acquainted with the following trial proceedings conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office: “Inter Partes Review” , “Post Grant Review”, “Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents”, and “Derivation Proceeding”.

News story explains how a hedge fund manager attempted to reduce the stock price of drug companies by invalidating their patents through the inter-parte review process.

This article discusses various reasons why a patent can be invalidated

This continued study of inter partes review (IPR) as a potentially cost-effective alternative or adjunct to district court litigation shows that IPRs are relatively cheap per petition--but single-petition IPR strategies are not always sufficient. Multi-petition strategies, on the other hand, can cost millions. Whether IPR is a cost-effective strategy to deal with a patent assertion or an expensive detour depends on the chosen strategy and the circumstances of the campaign.

Video explains the following patent terms: the Markman hearing and claim construction.

Video explains how infringement cannot be divided among different parties.

Infringement of a patent consists of the unauthorized making, using, offering for sale, or selling any patented invention within the United States or U.S. Territories, or importing into the United States of any patented invention during the term of the patent.

In this portion of the book, Patents, Cloaks and Daggers, written by David Smith, you will learn about “Claims Charts”. Claims Charts are very important documents in the patent trading business. A Claims Chart shows evidence that the claims of a patent are present in a product (or service). The Claims Chart has two columns, the left column containing the element of the claim, and the right column showing evidence of infringement in the product.

The en banc court characterized the problem as determining, when "more than one actor is involved in practicing the steps" of a method claim of a patent, whether the acts of one actor are attributable to the other actor such that second one is to be held "responsible for the infringement." The court said that it would hold one entity responsible for another's performance of method steps in two sets of circumstances: "where that entity directs or controls others' performance", and "where the actors form a joint enterprise." In past cases, the court noted that it had held that "an actor is liable for infringement under § 271(a) if it acts through an agent (applying traditional agency principles) or contracts with another to perform one or more steps of a claimed method." To those two circumstances, the court held that it would now add a third: We conclude, on the facts of this case, that liability under § 271(a) can also be found when an alleged infringer conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit upon performance of a step or steps of a patented method and establishes the manner or timing of that performance.

The Court held that liability for inducement can only be found when there is direct patent infringement. Because patent rights extend only to the claimed combination of steps, there is no direct patent infringement unless all the steps are carried out.

This voice narrated slideshow shares insights on issues regarding Patent Infringement.

An infringer knowingly, willfully infringing a patent is treated somewhat harsher by the courts than a company unwittingly practicing a patented invention without a license. In fact, the punishment for willfully infringing is a judgment of triple damages.

An entity that is “potentially” (or accused of) infringing a patent(s) can bring a lawsuit against the patent holder and ask the court for a declaratory judgment, (i.e. ask the court to declare that infringement has not taken place): In this situation, the patent holder is forced to file a claim of infringement, otherwise the right to claim infringement by the patent holder against the entity that brought the “declaratory judgment” lawsuit is forever lost.

Video looks at injunctive relief in patent law, including preliminary injunctions.

Video looks at patent damages, willful infringement, and attorney's fees.

How the small town of Marshall in Eastern Texas became the battlefield for patent lawsuits and how the T.C. Heartland case has shifted cases to courthouses in other states, like Delaware, that don't want to hear them.

Thomas Kunkel explains how to draft patent infringement complaints in the Western District of Texas.

A Practice Note discussing patent infringement claims and defenses in the US federal courts. It provides an overview of direct and indirect infringement claims, claim construction and key defenses under US patent law, as modified by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). It also includes a brief discussion of procedural considerations, remedies and alternative forums for patent dispute resolution, including post-grant and pre-issuance proceedings in the USPTO under the AIA.

Example of how the court can invalidate a patent on the grounds of prior art, obviousness and other reasons.

The Supreme Court limited the power of patent holders by reversing a lower court decision that gave printer maker Lexmark control over its ink cartridges after they'd been sold.

35 U.S.C. § 285 provides that “in exceptional cases [the court] may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” In 2014, the Supreme Court clarified the standard for “exceptional” conduct as behavior “that stands out from others with respect to the substantive strength of a party’s litigating position (considering both the governing law and the facts of the case) or the unreasonable manner in which the case was litigated.” The framework laid out in Octane Fitness LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness Inc. relaxed the previous standard and provide more discretion to district courts in finding exceptional behavior. In this case Judge Andrews rejected Plaintiffs’ attempt to rely on the presumption of validity, stating that “[t]he issuance of a patent cannot and should not be a license to sue with abandon.”

Jury foreman in Apple-Samsung case explains how the verdict was reached.

Analysis of how the jury reached their conclusions.

How Samsung challenges the verdict based on the disclosures of the head juror.

Apple versus Samsung: Full interview with the jury foreman.

Jury ignored Jury instructions in making its award by using the calculation theories of Apple expert Terry Musika, which she had ruled as legally impermissible before the trial ended. "In this case, it is apparent that the jury awarded 40 percent of Apple's expert Terry Musika's calculation of Samsung's profits".

Copy of the instructions provided to the jury by the judge in the Apple-Samsung case in Northern California.

BBC article on the Apple-Samsung case.

Amended verdict of the jury in the Apple-Samsung case in Northern California.

This opinion, written by the judge in the Apple-Samsung case, explains where the jury made a mistake in assessing damages and orders a new trial on $450m of damages. This is supplemental reading, not required reading.

A debate has arisen within the legal community over the existence and constitutionality of a so-called “complexity exception” to the Seventh Amendment. This exception would give a judge the discretion to deny a jury trial in a civil case if he or she feels that the issue is too complex for a jury to decide properly. This piece discusses the constitutionality of the complexity exception and the arguments for and against its implementation, with particular emphasis on the application of the exception to patent infringement cases.