 |
|
Click here to access archived articles.
MY WISHES FOR 2007 - PART 2
Intellectual Property Today, June-07
Joe’s second set of wishes are: (1) judges should be willing to order mediation; (2) trim back the use of experts; (3) let’s have less hysterical and more knowledgeable media reporting on intellectual property issues; and - perhaps his most insightful and controversial wish - (4) Stop using Powerpoint presentations. Joe’s discussion of the downside of Powerpoints is both perceptive and side-splitting.
WHEN YOU SHOULD "BEAT UP" YOUR CLIENT?
Intellectual Property Today, April-07
While he understands why inventors often think about winning their lawsuits mainly in terms of righting a wrong, Joe believes that they often have very unrealistic goals. Thinking that litigation will reap huge rewards and bring personal vindication, as many inventors do, is often myopic. When his clients have these kinds of misperceptions, Joe tries to make them see that litigation may not always be appropriate, and that settling the case may be the wisest option.
THE SECRET TO WINNING: DON'T REPRESENT JERKS
Intellectual Property Today, March-07
Here, Joe describes the attitudes and behavior of some of his firm’s best - and worst - clients. He concludes that having a good client is just as important as having good facts and good lawyers.
MY WISHES FOR 2007 - PART 1
Intellectual Property Today, February-07
Joe’s first seven wishes for 2007: (1) let’s junk the Schlieffen plans; (2) there should be fewer, not more, summary judgments; (3) stop the search for the damned holy grail of legal perfection; (4) make the lawyers learn the facts early; (5) use effective mediators; (6) skip free-standing Markman hearings; and (7) use more contingent fee litigation.
MEGA-FIRMS: THE MEGA-HEADACHE
Intellectual Property Today, December-06
A discussion of the disturbing ways some large law firms shortchange their unsuspecting clients by over-billing and, in some cases, downright lying. Joe cites the shady behavior of a few specific (named)
large-firm attorneys, whose misbehavior has been highlighted recently in the legal press, as well as in publications such as the Wall Street Journal.
WHERE CONGRESS SHOULD ACT: DEAL WITH THE UNFORTUNATE CONSEQUENCE OF NTP
Intellectual Property Today, September-06
Joe’s plea to Congress to turn its attention away from the issue of patent reform and limiting damages, to the task of repairing the unfortunate consequence of the highly publicized NTP/RIM case. This case harms the rights of patent owners in our global economy by depriving the inventor of a method of any remedy so long as one single step occurs outside the United States -- even if the benefit of the method is in the United States, and even if the control of the method is exerted largely from the United States.
ARE ALTERNATIVE FEE ARRANGEMENTS BETTER FOR THE PLAINTIFF THAN CONTINGENT FEE LITIGATION?
Intellectual Property Today, August-06
In this article, Joe discusses various "creative" legal billing approaches, which have been touted by some as being more advantageous for the plaintiff than contingent fee litigation. Among the methods discussed: the DuPont model and hybrid billing.
IS IBM A PATENT TROLL?
Intellectual Property Today, May-06
Here, Joe takes a look at corporations that obtain, license and enforce patents, and asks whether we should consider them to be trolls. Many corporations are mentioned here, including IBM, Canon, Intel and Microsoft. All patent trolls?
STANFORD UNIVERSITY – A PATENT TROLL?
Intellectual Property Today, April-06
In this column, Joe points out that universities often take out patents, but do not manufacture any products based on those patents. Among his examples: Stanford, UCSF and Carnegie Mellon. Are they trolls?
PATENT TROLLS - OR NOT?
Intellectual Property Today, February-06
This is the first in a series of columns Joe has written for IP Today on the controversial topic of patent trolls. In this article, he includes examples of clients and non-clients alike – inventors who might be considered patent trolls by those who are uninformed.
WHO SAYS CONTINGENT FEE LAWYERS ARE THE BIGGEST MONEYMAKERS?
Intellectual Property Today, August-05
This column is Joe’s response to the many media stories that discuss the “evil” patent owners and their “greedy” contingent fee lawyers, who are (supposedly) together “enjoying windfall after windfall, made by ripping off big companies.” This, says Joe, is simply not the case. He explains about the costs involved for attorneys in contingent fee litigation, as well as the waste caused by hourly billing by many attorneys.
IN FAVOR OF BRAINSTORMING
Intellectual Property Today, May-05
This delightful column starts out by announcing that an invention of one of Joe’s clients adorns the cover of the book, Patently Ridiculous, by Richard Ross. The book includes this invention -- Canine Scuba Diving Apparatus – as an example of “ridiculous” or “wacky” patents that should not have made it through the patent office, but did. In this column, Joe tells WHY he feels this is a valid
NEW RULES FOR INVENTORS
Intellectual Property Today, April-05
In this column, Joe looks at several ways inventors can make their lives simpler and their inventions more successful and profitable. Among his main points: (1) never use an invention submission company, (2) analyze the commercial value of your invention BEFORE patenting it, (3) use multiple forms of protection for your intellectual property, and (4) learn about license agreements before you have to use one. patent – and why he is proud of having written it for his client.
THE HOLE AND THE PATCH
Intellectual Property Today, January-05
In this column, Joe presents his own scheme for patent reform, and looks at ways that patent law might be made simpler and fairer for everyone. One way is to make patent law similar to copyright and trademark law – both of which seem to be much simpler and more rational in their approaches to intellectual property protection.
WACKY PATENTS: ONLY IN AMERICA?
Intellectual Property Today, November-04
In this column, Joe dispels the notion that the United States has the only patent system that grants patent status to “wacky” inventions. It turns out that there are some really funny patents that have been approved in Europe, including Fernand Gauchard’s 1979 French patent, FR2468358, on a “Coffin Alarm System,” to “give the alarm if someone is buried alive.” The drawings accompanying several of these patents are hilarious!
DEAR AIPLA: KEEP OUR MESSAGE CONSISTENT
Intellectual Property Today, October-04
This column contains Joe’s plea to the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) to return to its stated mission of improving the quality of patents, and stopping the diverting of fees from the Patent and Trademark Office.
USE YOUR CLIENT
Intellectual Property Today, June-04
Picking the ideal client, and making effective use of his or her time and talents, is especially important to the contingent fee intellectual property lawyer. An intuitive lawyer can often tell WHICH clients will be the biggest help to their cases BEFORE taking the case. This column also discusses when to use your client as an expert.
ANOTHER LOOK AT PTO EXAMINERS
Intellectual Property Today, September-03
Here, Joe takes a close look at how the Patent Office handled the reexamination of the Rozmanith patent, which is owned by one of the clients of Joe’s firm. Some pretty big mistakes were made by the PTO in this case.
BE CHEAP: A CRUCIAL SECRET TO SUCCESSFUL CONTINGENT FEE LITIGATION
Intellectual Property Today, August-03
In this column, Joe shares with us several ways attorneys can keep costs down by following a few “tricks” of the contingent fee “trade.” Contingent fee litigation keeps costs down because the attorney makes money only if the case turns out well. Thus, there is NO INCENTIVE to run the clock! A few of Joe’s suggestions of ways to keep costs down: minimize the number of depositions, do depositions by phone, and avoid the use of expensive experts.
HOW TO COMMUNICATE WITH A CLIENT
Intellectual Property Today, July-03
Here, Joe gives several examples of “dos” and “don’ts” for attorneys when communicating with a client. His main points, though, come down to speaking respectfully and clearly to each client and potential client.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE PATENT OFFICE?
Intellectual Property Today, June-03
Many, if not most, intellectual property attorneys feel that there are many things wrong with the Patent Office. In this column, Joe examines his top two complaints: that some PTO examiners lack communication skills; and that they often lack a familiarity with, and the ability to, follow the rules.
HOW TO SIMPLY... MY WISHES FOR 2003
Intellectual Property Today, February-03
Joe’s wishes for 2003 include: fewer summary judgments, making the lawyers learn the facts of the case early, using effective mediators, and using contingent fee litigation. His recommendations still hold true today.
WHAT MAKES A GOOD LAWYER?
Intellectual Property Today, October-02
This common-sense analysis of the qualities that make a good lawyer contains several qualities that one would expect – and some that may surprise you.
THE WISDOM OF JURIES
Intellectual Property Today, August-02
Many judges and attorneys think that juries are not capable of making good decisions. But Joe disagrees: he believes strongly that juries are actually more likely to come to the correct and just decision than are judges. He gives lots of reasons for his opinions. An extremely compelling read.
THE
IDEAL CONTINGENT FEE CLIENT
Intellectual Property Today, July-02
Since, in contingent fee intellectual property
cases, the attorney does not get paid unless he wins, his client must
be particularly convincing: believable, helpful, dedicated, realistic
and willing to help his lawyer prepare the case. This article will help
potential contingent fee clients and their attorneys to decide what it
takes to be a “winning” client. Related articles: July, 2001, How to Recognize the Lousy Contingent
Fee Case, November, 1998, How
to Recognize the "Perfect" (i.e., "Winnable") Contingent
Fee Case; and May, 1999, A
Contingent Fee Victory
PREPARING THE INVENTOR FOR A DEPOSITION:
A SECOND LOOK
Intellectual Property Today,
June-02
More than any other witness, the inventor can
adversely impact his or her own case in deposition. This article gives
concrete examples of HOW the attorney can help his client prepare for
this extremely important event. Related article: November, 2000, What
Can Be Done to Improve Inventors' Depositions?
WHO IS THE LAW FOR?
Intellectual Property Today, April-02
This article points out that, when lawyers
discuss “patent law reform,” they should consider the needs
of the people most affected by these “reforms” – the inventors.
When inventors are not considered, they are often disserved by
the “reforms” that ensue. This article discusses the inventor’s
point of view.
MY TOP TEN LIST
Intellectual Property Today, February-02
A wry look, from this intellectual property attorney’s point of view,
at ten things lawyers would like judges to do. Included in this “wish
list”: not telling litigants you have read their briefs when you
haven’t, enforcing courtroom etiquette, using written orders, and
having “a little heart” when scheduling cases.
A JUDGE'S TOP
TEN LIST
Intellectual Property Today, March-02
The flip side of the coin. A discussion of
ten things judges would like lawyers to do – from the point of view
of one intellectual property attorney. Included in Joe Hosteny’s
“top ten” judge’s wish list: keeping briefs brief, avoiding
practice area lingo, following directions, and not attacking your opponent
when you attack his or her logic and position.
CIVILITY OR HONESTY? WHICH SHOULD
YOU CHOOSE?
Intellectual Property Today, January-02
A response to the media’s recent criticism
of lawyers as lacking “civility,” this article takes the stance
that some lawyers now turn "civility" into a weapon, twisting
nearly every rule meant to achieve progress in a lawsuit. It concludes
that “the goal of our judicial system is not to be a country club,”
and warns lawyers not to sacrifice truthfulness and effective representation
of their clients in order to avoid being called "uncivil."
A DIFFERENT KIND OF EXPERT WITNESS
Intellectual Property Today, November-01
The expert witness described in this article
is a lawyer (but not the lawyer who is trying the case) who will
give the defendant an opinion that the patent that has been asserted against
the defendant isn't valid, or isn't infringed, or is unenforceable because
of inequitable conduct. This article tells how the savvy intellectual
property litigation attorney should use this kind of lawyer/witness effectively.
HOW TO RECOGNIZE THE LOUSY CONTINGENT
FEE CASE
Intellectual Property Today, July-01
This article describes the contingent fee client
who is a “loser.” Among the traits to watch out for: clients
who don’t trust you, and who don’t want to help their attorney
by doing some of the legwork. Related articles: November, 1998, How
to Recognize the "Perfect" (i.e., "Winnable") Contingent
Fee Case; May, 1999, A
Contingent Fee Victory; and July 2002, The
Ideal Contingent Fee Client.
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE BUSINESS METHOD
PATENT IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2000
Intellectual Property Today, June-01
Describes the negatives concerning H.R. 5364,
which claims to “provide for improvements in the quality of patents
on certain inventions.” This article asserts that, if passed into
law, H.R. 5364 would accomplish just the opposite, complicating matters
and increasing the number, complexity and length of disputes.
WHAT I WOULD DO IF I WERE BOSS
Intellectual Property Today, April-01
Describes how the ideal judge, like an effective
kindergarten teacher, should keep orderliness in the courtroom by controlling
the case, and showing everyone – especially the bully, if there is
one – who is in charge. This approach, says the author, is not followed
often enough by judges.
A READER COMMENTS
Intellectual Property Today, March-01
In this article, Joe Hosteny responds to a
letter from one of his IP Today readers, a corporate attorney, who expressed
the opinion that, too often, the "poor corporation" is “held
hostage by an unworthy inventor," who files what amounts to a "paper
patent application" – in other words, a bad patent. Mr. Hosteny
defends the “poor inventor” and tells us why he disagrees with
his reader.
A LONG WALK FROM THE GOBI DESERT
TO THE RIVER STYX
Intellectual Property Today, January-01
Deals with the terrible ordeal an inventor
– especially a solo inventor -- must go through before he obtains
success. The average solo inventor must face so many obstacles that many
would never begin, if they only knew what lay ahead.
Click here to access archived
articles.
MEET
JOE | CASE
STUDIES | PUBLISHED ARTICLES | FUN &
INTERESTING CASES
SUBMITTING YOUR CASE | THE
LAW FIRM | OTHER LINKS | HOME
| FOR MEDIA ONLY |
