Florida Intellectual Property Law Blog

    I am often asked by inventors about the risks of having their patent revoked at a later date.  The United States Patent and Trademark Office doesn't make it easy to get a patent.  Florida patent attorneys like myself work through excruciating details to secure the approval of our clients' patent applications.  The USPTO also puts a significant amount of time into prior art searching and research prior to granting a patent and is necessarily reluctant to take a patent away once it's been issued.

    I read an article today about the USPTO's decision to tentatively nullify four patents held by Gilead Sciences, which cover a drug that treats AIDS patients (San Jose Mercury News, January 24, 2008). A consumer advocacy group up the coast from Florida (in New York) called the Public Patent Foundation is the third-party challenger in this case, claiming Gilead's patents are invalid, because they'd publicly disclosed the technology behind the drug.

    This brings up something I consistently counsel Florida patent seekers (and patent seekers everywhere) against. It is vitally important not to publicly disclose your idea--and in fact not to disclose it except under absolute necessity--before filing for a patent. The USPTO can, and certainly will, reject a patent application for an idea already in the public eye.

    Now, the chances are small that Gilead, having already secured their four patents, will have their patents revoked. (Even the Public Patent Foundation admits the unlikeliness of this.) And, Gilead, which earned $3.1 Billion in sales based on their patents, says they will "vigorously defend each and every claim." With that big a business riding on it, I'm sure they will.

As of 01 November 2007, new rules are set to govern Florida patent applications, as well as applications from all U.S. states. Specifically, the USPTO calls for no more than two continuation applications plus one request for continued examination (RCE). Previously there were no limits. On the one hand, this limits inventors' ability to argue its case with a U.S. patent examiner. On the other hand, such limitations mean applications have a foreseeable ending. This gives the inventor a patent faster if the application is approved or more quickly opens the door to other applicants if it is rejected.

An additional change is that patent applications can have no more than 25 claims, with only five allowable as independent claims. If more than 25 claims are presented, applicants must file and examination support document (ESD). Originally, the USPTO wanted no more than 10 claims and every patent application to provide an ESD; this is their compromise. For more information visit the USPTO's website.

An important Patent Reform Bill (S.1145) is under consideration in the Senate, and it carries with it serious implications for independent entrepreneurs and small businesses. Topping my list of concerns:

• Those in the patent pending stage would be required to publish their patent applications, which could reveal trade secrets to others in various stages with their own applications.

• The bill calls for a reduction of damages against infringers, which makes infringement more alluring to the ethically challenged.

• It requires all applicants to submit a search and patentability analysis, which significantly increases costs.

Can getting a single letter of the alphabet wrong in an issued patent spell disaster when it comes to litigating against infringers?  Unless the mistake is seen as being a minor typographical error that can be corrected by filing a certificate of correction, the answer is a resounding yes.

Hats off to Peter Zura of The 271 Patent Blog for his post on Central Admixure Pharmacy Services v. Advanced Cardiac Solutions (06-13-07).

 In this case, Central Admixture Pharmacy Services sued Advanced Cardiac Solutions for patent infringment relating to a chemical solution used duriing heart surgery. 

Joint patenting by the Big Three automakers - General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, has earned them their first joint patent to replace the parts of the car made of lighter-weight plastic composite materials with parts made of steel. According to a New York Times Report this step facilitates the improvement of the fuel economy.

The United States Council for Automotive Research had been started last year by the Big Three automakers and according to it, the patent symbolized the first time the automakers had produced an original technology. However, the US Council for Automotive Research further adds that it could take some years before the technology is applied to auto making. According to John Fillion, an engineer for the Chrysler Corporation, at present it is not possible to make one part every two minutes, though the engineers can make use of the technology to build a part of composite material in the laboratory.

The new technology enables composite parts to form around a hollow mold without a core - this reduces their weight to 10 percent or more.

I                                                    As a Florida patent attorney, I find myself regularly following news relating to IBM.  Not only is IBM consistently one of the top 10 patent filers in the U.S., but the birthplace of the P.C. was right here in Boca Raton, Florida.  In fact, IBM's main complex was just northwest of Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton until they relocated to Research Triangle Park in North Carolina.

Internet patents are asserted by IBM claiming patent infringement by Amazon.com.  IBM has charged the e-commerce giant, Amazon with two lawsuits, seeking unspecified damages as reported by www.pcadvisor.co.uk

IBM further added that it had tried to resolve the issue outside of court regarding the Internet patents for four years before deciding to sue Amazon.

According to the article, Amazon.com deliberately exploits its intellectual property by encroaching on several patents, whose coverage includes the storage of data in an interactive network, the presentation of applications in an interactive service, the ordering of items from an electronic catalogue and the presentation of advertising in an interactive service.

As IBM puts it, Amazon had been originally informed about the alleged infringement in September 2002, but the e-commerce company did not want to go for "meaningful discussions". IBM says that the patents in question are licensed by other companies. However, neither IBM nor Amazon has responded to further queries.

Software patents have been granted to HNTB by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for parts of its TrueViz(R) Transport software system, adding to the list of software patents. According to www.prnewswire.com HNTB has received exclusive rights to technology for the first time and this has been developed for facilitating its engineering and architecture clients' projects.

TrueViz(R) Transport is an interconnected system of procedures and software which increases the interactive visualization for public involvement and design analysis. The code of the software is credited to transform linear point-based data in design output to a chain of mathematically defined surfaces and curves. This simplifies the conversion of design files to 3-D and also brings in more accuracy and needs less time.

Consequently, HNTB can now bring before its clients as well as their stakeholders more realistic imagery of design alternatives. HNTB Companies, an employee-owned organization of infrastructure firms are famous for their functioning in bridges, architecture, transportation, aviation, urban design and planning.

Think automotive and automobile patents and Honda Motor is sure to come to mind. Herald Tribune reported that the world's largest automobile engine maker, Honda is poised to come up with the first diesel car for complying with environmental pollution standards worldwide.  Adding to its list of patented automotive technology, the company is credited for inventing a way to curtail the smog-forming gases. This technology claims to bring about faster acceleration of diesel cars and greater fuel economy. Honda is confident that this all new technology will gain a lot of customers.

According to a U.S. patent derived from Bloomberg News, the automaker boasts of a treatment system, which makes the exhaust flow via a plasma reactor or a layer of gas containing electrically charged atoms. Through this system, hazardous Nitrogen Oxides are separated to form Nitrogen Dioxide, which is finally decreased or absorbed by silver and alkali metals. Nitrogen Oxides are responsible for causing asthma, cancer, heart and lung diseases.

Honda has plans to sell its U.S. diesel model by 2009. However, the automaker has not revealed the models that will be available with its brand new engine.

                                         Internet Patents in the news again.  According to a recent press release from Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in their official website www.eff.org, they are set to challenge an allegedly improper Internet patent that is threatening small businesses.

Ideaflood is a self-declared 'intellectual property holding company' that makes use of Internet subdomain patenting against payment from the website hosting companies, which provide personalized and virtual subdomains, such as 'action.eff.org' for 'eff.org', the parent domain.

A reexamination request had been filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), the result of which revealed by EFF and Rick McLeod of Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, proves that the method Ideaflood boasts of inventing was known prior to the issue of the patent and thus goes without merit. Furthermore, website developers were also publicly discussing the creation of these virtual subdomains on an Apache developer mailing list a year earlier Ideaflood claimed its patent.

According to Rick McLeod, the patent system must be for innovation and is not meant to infringe on the public area.

Patenting inventions have taken another big leap with the invention of a computer algorithm by the Ford Motor Company.  According to nytimes.com, this computer algorithm for a traction-control system is advanced and is expected to stop a car from spinning its wheels in case a driver steps too hard on the gas. The patent covers a chain of mathematical procedures or an algorithm, which enables a computer process to calculate the slope of the road as well as its friction.

Computerized anti-lock brakes are great for preventing a car from sliding into an uncontrollable skid. This patent invention is a more complex system, which is able to analyze the road conditions and can depict whether the wheels of the car will slip.

According to Roger May, a patent attorney for Ford, the company is scheduled to introduce the traction-control system on its 1998 or 1999 models. He further adds that 'peeling rubber' will be impossible with this system.

Patent infringement has once again raised its ugly head with Ericsson filing a lawsuit against Samsung in a Texas court, as reported in www.pcadvisor.co.uk

According to Ericsson spokeswoman Kristina Hagg-Blecher, the suit charges Samsung for infringing on the mobile phone patents of Ericsson. In February, Ericsson had filed lawsuits in the UK, US, Germany and the Netherlands following the failure of both companies to agree terms for renewing the patent licenses. For patents related to many mobile phone technologies, Ericsson had initially signed a licensing deal with Samsung back in 2002.

According to a spokeswoman for Samsung, the company does not make any comments on the ongoing legal issues.

Ericsson and Samsung are not the only mobile companies to fight over patent license renewals; in the past, Nokia and Qualcomm were caught in the middle of a bitter renegotiation process. At that time, Nokia had filed a complaint against Qualcomm with the EC and Qualcomm had filed a complaint against Nokia with the US International Trade Commission.

Hats off to Mark Reichel of The Daily Dose of IP Blog for his post regarding the U.S. Patent Office discontinuing its annual top ten patent holder list.

In the Patent Office press release, the PTO announced that it will no longer be publishing its annual ranking of the top 10 organizations obtaining the most U.S. patents in the preceeding year.  According to the press release, it is abandoning the list of top ten patent holders and "emphasizing quality over qualtity by discouraging any perception that we believe more is better." 

 About time.  I always wondered why the patent office focused so much attention on their "top ten list" as all it really did was provide those few "repeat customers" lucky enough to be in the "top ten" with bragging rights on their level of innovation.  

I wonder if the patent office's departure from this "strictly by the numbers" approach is the beginning of a new trend in the intellectual property field.  Are we finally able to look beyond the total number of patents in any defined segment before making broad generalizations based upon that number.

For example, as long as I can remember, the well known publication, Intellectual Property Today has tabulate its "Top Patent Law Firm" and "Top Trademark Law Firm" listings based EXCLUSIVELY on the number of patents and trademarks these firms obtained for their clients in any given year. 

The law firms near the top of this list invariably (like their corporate counterparts in the PTO's top ten listings) used their ranking in IP Today's top ten lists in their marketing materials. 

Perhaps such marketing efforts are persuasive--I don't know--but I welcome comments from in-house patent counsel as to what weight, if any, the IP Today annual top firm survey has on their choice of private patent or trademark counsel.

(As an aside: I am currently considering corrective laser eye surgery to eliminate my having to wear glasses and have narrowed my choice of surgeons down to a handful in the Fort Lauderdale / Miami Florida area---let me tell you...the number of eyes ZAPPED per year per doctor is not on my list of criteria!)

I am sure that rankings that go "strictly by the numbers" is the easiest and least controversial method of publishing listings of law firms and the PTO's top ten list.  But just because something is the "easiest and least controversial" does not mean that it is faultless.  From the perspective of a Florida patent attorney, I fail to see how a ranking by the numbers provides any indication of quality (as in the listings of patent law firms) or of innovation (as in the PTO's top ten listings).  

I was waiting to return to sunny Florida from a short two day visit to the patent office last week and, instead, I ended up stranded at Washington's Reagan airport for over eight hours. 

According to news reports of the massive snow and ice storm in the Northeast, I was not the only one.  Luckily I had brought a copy of a new book, "Patents for Business" by patent attorney Henry Heines and had time to complete it during the wait.

Although not written for patent attorneys, per se, a couple of the chapters still make for good reading for in-house intellectual property lawyers looking for practical advice on patent due diligence and strategy.  For patent attorneys, I advise skipping the early basic chapters on patent subject matter, novelty, and determining patentability and jumping right to patent portfolio referencing and other more advanced topics focusing on strategy.

Peter Zura does an excellent review of "Patents for Business" on his 271 Patent Blog and if  you are not a patent lawyer, you may want to read his review .  In fact, his blog makes for excellent reading and is a "must read" for anyone seriously interested in patent news and analysis.

Interestingly enough, the domain name PatentsforBusiness.com, does not direct you to a website for the book but instead takes you to a company website that claims to be "dedicated to the development of patent portfolios aimed at meeting the objectives, needs and requirements of your business".

I am not sure if there is any connection between the author and this website but if there is not...this underscores the importance of investigating potential conflicts with domain name registrations prior to any branding strategies whether that branding strategy be a new business name, product identity, or (as in this case) the title for a new book.

As a Florida patent attorney, I try to keep an ear to the ground on new developments in Florida that are relevant to my practice of intellectual property in the state.  The potential increase in Florida's biotech patenting activity is one such development.

In a recent post in the BioHealth Investor, Florida is touted as one of the country’s next biotech hubs. According to the article, it all began when the Scripps Research Institute accepted a proposal for $500 million in financing to establish a biotech research hub in the state on the western fringes of Palm Beach County.

After encountering some problems with environmental groups, Scripps made a decision to move their research center to Jupiter, Florida just north of West Palm Beach, Florida, one of Florida Atlantic University’s campuses. 

In an article reprinted in the Orlando Sentinel, Phil Milford of Bloomberg News reports a patent infringement suit has been filed against  Walt Disney, Universal Studios, Busch Gardens, and other theme-park operators for allegedly infringing patents on magnetic brakes used on roller coasters.  Florida patent attorneys should find the complete article of interest:

Disney, GE, others face patent suit

General Electric Co.'s NBC Universal Inc., Walt Disney Co. and three other U.S. theme-park operators were accused of infringing patents on magnetic brakes used on roller coasters.

Safety Braking Corp., based in Newport Beach, Calif., claims the companies infringed patents won in 1994 and 2003. The defendants also include Busch Entertainment Corp., Six Flags Inc. and Cedar Fair LP.

Safety Braking holds exclusive licenses to the patents, one from Magnetar Technologies Corp., based in Seal Beach, California, and the other from G&T Conveyor Co., based in Tavares.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has launched a community review project according to an article in the Washington Post.  The peer review project will post patent applications to the internet and invite comments on prior art submissions from the internet community.

The complete article can be found here and is reproduced below for your convenience:

 By Alan Sipres

Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 5, 2007; 3:34 PM

 The government is about to start opening up the process of reviewing patents to the modern font of wisdom: the Internet.

As a Fort Lauderdale patent attorney, I closely follow patenting news relating to the medical device industry as we have several clients in this technology group.  Of particular interest is new patent infringment cases filed and their successful resolutions.  In this regard, I recently came across a press release by Ft. Lauderdale diabetes testing equipment and supply manufacturer, Home Diagnostics, Inc. regarding a summary judgment in their favor for non-infringement of patents held by Roche Diagnostics Corporation.

The case was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana and a link to the full press release by the Ft. Lauderdale, Florida company's website can be accessed by clicking here.

When most people think of Samuel Clemens, or Mark Twain as he has penned himself in his writings, they think of the famous author and fondly recall reading his well known works Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer.

Few realize that Mark Twain, born in Florida, Mo., was also an aspiring inventor and the holder of three U.S. patents.  From what little Mark Twain wrote of patents in his fiction, it appears as if Mark Twain believed strongly in the U.S. patent system and its benefits to society.

In his book, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's court, he has the Connecticut Yankee say the following about the patent office:

"...the very first official thing I did in my administration-and it was on the very first day of it too-was to start a patent office; for I knew that a country without a patent office and good patent laws was just a crab and couldn't travel anyway but sideways and backwards."

In his Intellectual Property Counsel Blog post entitled " A Litmus Test to Identify Exceptional Patent Attorneys ", in-house Florida intellectual property attorney Todd Mayover provides a good overview of things that distinguish a " good patent attorney "from an "exceptional patent attorney ". 

In particular, he writes:

Adding value to patents requires a complete understanding of an invention, knowledge of the current state of the field of art, the ability to identify how an invention fits in to the industry or market, and the ability to identify and distinguish the closest competitors.

I could not agree more with this statement but feel the need to question sometimes the way that in-house attorneys make their hiring decisions for patent prosecution work.  Many times, outside counsel are chosen on the basis of firm and name partner reputations without any inquiry at all on who will actually be doing the work. 

There is nothing wrong with this, of course, as long as the attorney and partners that were responsible for building a law firms reputation are the same ones that will work on your matter.  If they are not the ones actually doing the work on a company's application, however, in-house intellectual property lawyers should question why they are paying for a senior partner's billing rates when a "wet behind the ears" new associate is actually the one doing the "heavy lifting" on the patent application draft.

A U.S. District Court Judge's ruling against restaurant chain, HOOTERS, has been affirmed in a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Florida District Court Judge Anne C. Conway in Orlando, Florida, ruled that the "Hooters Girl" persona is "primarily functional" and therefore not entitled to trademark protection. HI Ltd. Partnership v. Winghouse of Florida, Inc. No. 6:03-cv-116 (M.D. Fla. 2004).

Trademark attorneys for Hooters claimed that the Florida based sports bar WingHouse copied too many elements from Hooters restaurant and violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Relying on the classic elements of trademark infringement, Hooter's argued that Winghouse copied so many features unique to Hooters that customers would be confused into thinking the two companies were affiliated.

Todd Mayover, in-house intellectual property counsel for a medical device company in Florida, has an interesting post at the IPCounsel Blog entitled Intellectual Property Mediation:

"Regardless of the situation, without suggesting mediation, it will never happen. The obvious risk is that other party(s) may say no, but this would have no effect on the actual case at hand. At least the parties would know where they stand."

That being said, it is important to note that the risks of not mediating vary greatly depending upon which milestones have already passed in the litigation.

In Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc. et al. (Fed. Cir. 2006), the Federal Circuit held that a patent owner's dealings with a Florida licensee was sufficient to give the court jurisdiction over the patent owner.

Beckenridge filed suit against Metabolite and PamLab in the United Stated District Court for the Southern District of Florida for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the patent and alleging state law claims of tortious interference with contract and unfair competition.

The Federal Circuit held that Florida's long-arm statute authorized personal jurisdiction over Metabolite and that such jurisdiction would comport with due process:

In sum, our case law has held as follows: where a defendant has sent cease and desist letters into a forum state that primarily involve a legal dispute unrelated to the patent at issue, such as an injunction obtained for misappropriation of trade secrets, the exercise of personal jurisdiction is improper. Silent Drive, 326 F.3d at 1202.

On January 3, 2006, the United States Patent & Trademark Office said it may limit the ability of a company to file continuing applications that allow it to revise or modify its existing patent claims, according to an article at MSNBC.com.

The reasoning behind this new rule concerns the growing backlog of patent applications that are waiting to be reviewed by patent examiner's at the United States Patent & Trademark Office.

In a column in the The Herald in Bradenton, Florida, entitled "Invent Something? Plan Marketing Carefully", business columnist Jerry Osteryoung offers good advice to inventors looking to hire a patent attorney to assist them in securing legal rights to their ideas.

Florida businessman Rocco Monteleone was in for a surprise patent dispute after he opened up a cereal cafe in Gainesville, Florida.

He received a letter from an attorney representing Cereality, Inc., a company claiming exclusive rights to their patent pending system and method of selling cereal, according to an article in In These Times.

How do patent cases in Florida compare to the rest of the nation in terms of time from filing to decision?

Well, a lot depends upon whether the case seeks a bench trial or a jury trial as patent cases terminated by bench trials take much longer than cases terminated by jury trials.

According to LegalMetric, LLC, the average patent bench trial nationwide took 37.8 months compared to 27.1 months for a jury trial.

If life were like the popular board game Monopoly®, obtaining meaningful patent protection would be as simple as buying up Boardwalk and Park Place. In the board game, you simply purchase the property you want, place houses or hotels on them over time, and eagerly collect a continual revenue stream from the successful venture.

The rules governing monopolies on ideas, however, are significantly more complex and have recently undergone one of the most far-reaching changes in history. As you mull over the unique features of your newly discovered invention or method of doing business, it is important to consider recent changes in patent law and their particular importance to individual inventors.

PUBLISHING OF APPLICATIONS

If you are like most inventors, the thought of publicly disclosing the secret details of your invention before a patent has been issued is very unsettling. Few inventors realize, however, that under the American Inventor's Protection Act of 1999, the confidential details disclosed in their U.S. patent applications may be promptly published eighteen months from the earliest claimed filing date unless certain conditions are met.

If life were like the popular board game Monopoly ®, obtaining meaningful patent protection would be as simple as buying up Boardwalk and Park Place. In the board game, you simply purchase the property you want, place houses or hotels on them over time, and eagerly collect a continual revenue stream from the successful venture.

The rules governing monopolies on ideas, however, are significantly more complex. As you mull over the unique features of your newly discovered invention or method of doing business, I want to dispel a number of common, yet potentially dangerous, misconceptions about patents:

Misconception No. 1: All of the good ideas have already been patented.

Fact: In 1899, U.S. Commissioner of Patents Charles H. Duell reportedly stated that "everything that can be invented has been invented." His statement, as we all know, was followed by the invention of the airplane, television, radio, cars, computers, biotechnology, space travel, microwave ovens, cellular phones, digital cameras, the artificial heart, and the internet! The line of thinking that all the good ideas are gone is as wrong today as it was back then. Major pioneering inventions, such as the development of the internet, are being made on a daily basis and there appears to be no end in sight.

Misconception No. 2: It is necessary to include a working model of your invention along with an application for a patent.

Fact: This is a very common misconception. Working models, prototypes, or exhibits are very rarely required for most patent applications. Even the Wright Brothers had not flown when they applied for their groundbreaking aeronautical patents. Their famous Kitty Hawk adventure did not occur until March 23, 1903, a full nine months after the filing of their patent.

Although a working model is not generally required, the description of the invention in the specification and the drawings does have to be sufficiently clear and complete to permit the invention to be understood by someone familiar with the field of the technology.

When most people think of patents, they automatically think of a new mechanical product, a chemical composition, or a manufacturing process. Since a landmark Supreme Court decision in 1998, however, an increasing number of patents are being issued for innovations in business methods. Patents are not just reserved for classical scientific innovations anymore, but are regularly used by banks, stockbrokers, insurance companies, and retailers to protect their newly developed methods of doing business.

In the past, the U.S. Patent Office rarely granted business method patents. Additionally, software patents were not considered to be patentable subject matter because of a belief that software was nothing but an unprotectible algorithm. Today, however, patents are routinely applied for and issued for software and business methods as well as Internet-related applications. New software patenting guidelines have been issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and have made software patents easier to obtain.

Patents, not copyrights, are now the only way to give adequate protection to the most important aspects of software. The is true because the "idea" behind a particular algorithm is much better protected as a patentable method than as a narrowly limited expression in copyright law.

Most software designers are interested in preventing others from stealing the core methodology used in their software. As such, a patent on the software should be obtained. The principal benefit of protecting computer software through the patent system is the strength of protection that is provided by a patent.

E-commerce patents have attracted a lot of attention in the news lately and the U.S. Patent Office is facing criticism, once again, relating to their examination and issuance of patents relating to a revolutionary new technology.

I say "once again" because this is not the first time a new technological development has stirred up controversy at the U.S. Patent Office. Over a century ago, there was severe criticism relating to the granting of agricultural inventions.

This was followed by debates about the patenting of the telephone, the automobile, pharmaceutical drugs and the recent criticism of the biotechnology industry. With this historical backdrop, it is little wonder that the development of the Internet has spawned another patenting debate.

Inventors can obtain three different types of patents in the United States, namely, plant patents, utility patents, and design patents. Plant patents are rare and are used to protect a new plant that the inventor has produced asexually (without using seeds). A utility patent can be used to protect the way a new technology functions and is used. A design patent protects the visual characteristics of an item.

There is often confusion among inexperienced entrepreneurs and inventors regarding the differences between utility and design patent protection. It is important to understand that a design patent protects only the appearance of an article and not its structural or functional features. It is different than a utility patent because it offers no protection for the way an article works and can only protect the unique visual "look" of a new item. As such, if you are looking to protect the way your invention works, a utility patent should be pursued. The proceedings relating to granting of design patents are similar to those relating to utility patents with a few differences.

Inventors can obtain three different types of patents in the United States, namely, plant patents, utility patents, and design patents. Plant patents are rare and are used to protect a new plant that the inventor has produced asexually (without using seeds). A utility patent can be used to protect the way a new technology functions and is used. A design patent protects the visual characteristics of an item.

There is often confusion among inexperienced entrepreneurs and inventors regarding the differences between utility and design patent protection. It is important to understand that a design patent protects only the appearance of an article and not its structural or functional features. It is different than a utility patent because it offers no protection for the way an article works and can only protect the unique visual "look" of a new item. As such, if you are looking to protect the way your invention works, a utility patent should be pursued. The proceedings relating to granting of design patents are similar to those relating to utility patents with a few differences.

Adapt4, Inc. is a Melbourne, Florida based firm hopes its patent pending technology will change the way radio frequencies are used to maximize the available radio spectrum that is available.

The technology uses a "time share" model to allow use of radio channels when they are not in use by others according to an article in the Houston Chronicle.

A small manufacturer of electric drive motor technology based in Tarpon Springs, Florida, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Toyota Motor Corporation in Tampa, Florida in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida according to a press release by Solomon Technologies, Inc.

The company contends that the gas-electric hybrid Prius and Highlander vehicles are infringing on its patents.

A patent has been awarded to Florida Atlantic University Professor Stuart Galup for a new software-based system for assisting local government departments in overseeing guardianship cases according to an article in the Boca Raton News.

According to the article, this was the first patent associated with Florida Atlantic University to originate with the College of Business. The fact that the article points this out as being significant shows that patents are still seen by many as being in the exclusive realm of engineering colleges not business schools. A number of patents for software-based innovations and business methods have been granted to Florida patent holders recently.

A lawsuit filed in Orlando, Florida, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleges that patent rights to a new laser scanner product are being infringed.

The patent holder, FARO Technologies, Inc. is based in Lake Mary, Florida, just outside Orlando, and seeks injunctive relief and damages from a Romer Cimcore subsidiary of Hexagon, according to an article in PR Newswire.

Patent depository libraries are an excellent resource for patent research. The United States Patent & Trademark Office has established around 80 depository libraries throughout the United States with at least one in each state. Many states have several. For example, Florida has two patent depository libraries in South Florida, one in Miami and a second one in Ft. Lauderdale.

A professor of mechanical engineering with the Florida A&M University / Florida State University College of Engineering sees potential for commercial applications of his patent-pending technique for particle separation.