Israel Ranked 3rd in US Patent Filings

April 2, 2015

us patent3rd place

Israel originating patents filed in the US jumped 21 percent in 2014, according to a study by BdiCoface.

The study found that 3,555 Israel-based patents were filed in the US during 2014,which is nearly 389 patents per million Israeli inhabitants. Only Japan, with 445.6 patents per million, and Taiwan, with 524.4 patents per million, outranked Israel, which was ahead of South Korea, Switzerland, Sweden and Finland.

From 2009 to 2013, the companies filing the most US patents for Israeli inventions were IBM (674 patents), followed by Intel (435), Marvell (281), Sandisk (261) and HP (197). The top educational institutions in Israel filing US patents were Tel Aviv University (161), the Weizmann Institute (158), the Technion (137) and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (116). These statistics are high compared to other universities abroad and is seems that Israel’s tech transfer policy is working.

Probably due to the relatively high cost, there has been a drop in European Patent Applications for Israeli inventions.

We note that the US is a preferred location for Israel inventors who may not bother filing in Israel. For fast moving industries such as telecommunications, it may make sense only filing in the US. For methods of medical treatments or after the inventor has published or presented his invention in public, there may be no alternatives. Nevertheless, we consider not filing in Israel may be a costly mistake. Often Israel has more than one company in the same technology area. Current employees may become competitors. Enforcing a patent in Israel is much cheaper than enforcement in the US and the costs of also filing and prosecuting in Israel may be minimal. Finally, with the PPH (Patent Prosecution Highway) first filing in Israel may speed up the process of obtaining a patent in the US.

We also note that patents and patent applications are not apples and oranges. The absolute numbers and even numbers per capita are statistics of doubtful value as some patents are worth billions and most aren’t worth the cost of obtaining them. That is true even if they are exceptionally well written, simply because some technologies are implemented and others are obsolete when filed.

I do recommend that my Israel based clients seriously consider filing in Israel. Apart from odd Judaica related inventions and other niche products, most file in the US.  China is taking over from Europe as a primary destination, but Europe, Korea and Japan are all popular. Australia and India are also on the patent map.

The correct strategy of where to file and indeed of what to file is very case specific and depends on a number of variables including but not limited to budget, business plan, technology field, the centrality of the patent to the company, the size of potential and actual markets and where competitors are domiciled.

 


PCZL (Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer LLP) Appeals Source Vagabond Decision Sanctioning the Law firm for bringing Frivolous Law Suit.

January 21, 2015

shlooker

Background

Source Vagabond is one of a number of companies making personal portable water supplies that are known in Israel as Shlookers – a shlook being slang Hebrew for a sip.

On August 2, 2011, Source Vagabond sued Hydrapak for, inter alia, infringing “at least claim of the US 7,648,276 patent, either literally, or under the doctrine of equivalents.” On September 16, 2011, Hydrapak served a sanctions motion under Rule 11 which provides that, before a motion for sanctions is filed, the party against whom the sanctions will be sought must be notified of the potential Rule 11 violation and given a twenty-one-day period to withdraw the offending claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). Source declined to withdraw. On October 6, 2011, Source filed an Amended Complaint, and on October 12, 2011, Hydrapak served an amended Rule 11 motion.

The court of first instance ruled that granted Hydrapak’s motions for summary judgment and Rule 11 sanctions on April 11, 2012.

Regarding claim construction, the court said there was “nothing complicated or technical” about the claim limitation “slot being narrower than the diameter of the rod,” and that none of the words of this limitation “requires definition or interpretation beyond its plain and ordinary meaning.” Accordingly, the court gave “slot being narrower than the diameter of the rod” its“plain and ordinary meaning.”

The district court stated that Source’s proposed claim interpretation “violates all the relevant canons of claim construction” and that even under Source’s own construction, Hydrapak did not infringe. It also found the literal infringement claim “lacked evidentiary support no matter how the claim was construed” and “the difference is apparent to the naked eye, and the tape measure leaves no room for doubt.”

Specifically, the district court determined that in Hydrapak’s products the slot is larger than the diameter of the rod, even under Source’s proposed construction. The original decision ruling that the case was frivolous and fining attorneys PCZL is reported here.

Source Vagabond and Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer appealed the ruling.

The Appeal

On appeal, judge Cott determined that the sanctions were bases on two grounds:

“Source made frivolous legal claims in its submissions to the Court, in violation of Rule 11(b)(2); and Source failed to conduct an adequate investigation before filing this lawsuit, in violation of Rule 11(b)(3).”. He recommended Source’s counsel (i.e. Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer pay $187,308.65 in partial attorney’s fees, but that Source not be sanctioned.

The logic, explained by the district court was “Given counsel’s sole responsibility, as a matter of law, for the violations of Rule 11(b)(2), and counsel’s additional responsibility for the failure to investigate under Rule 11(b)(3), I recommend that Yonay and Shuman be held responsible for any monetary sanction. I further recommend Yonay and Shuman’s law firm, Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer LLP be held jointly and severally liable in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1).

Hydropak successfully argued that it should receive legal fees for defending against te reconsideration motion, and the court concurred, raising the damages to $200,054.

The decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit.

Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit Ruling

In patent lawsuits, defending against baseless claims of infringement subjects the alleged infringer to undue costs, and this is precisely the scenario that Rule 11 contemplates.

The District Court found that Source had an obligation to demonstrate why they believed they had a reasonable chance of proving infringement, and that Source failed to show either literal infringement or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The issue revolved around the meaning of “slot being narrower than the diameter of the rod”. The district court dismissed Source’s construction stating, “an ‘analysis’ that adds words to the claim language [without support in the intrinsic evidence] in order to support a claim of infringement” does not follow “standard canons of claim construction.” Additionally, the surrounding claim language demonstrates that the “the slot,” “the rod, and “the portion of the container . . . folded over the rod” are distinct from each other. The claim language does not compare the size of the slot to the size of the rod together with the folded over container. Source had the ability to draft the claim that way but did not. It cannot correct that failure by adding words to otherwise unambiguous claim language. In other words, there is a limit to what one can argue a claim means.

Finally, Source argues that Hydrapak’s proposed construction “would render the entirety of claim 1 nonsensical.” This is a fascinating admission that not only does the scope of the claim as prosecuted by PCZL not include the product fabricated by Hydrapak, but that the claim is actually meaningless.

On Appeal, the Federal Circuit stated that “The district court properly determined that “claim construction is a function of the words of the claim not the ‘purpose’ of the invention,” and that Source’s construction “violates nearly every tenet of claim construction and amounts to a wholesale judicial rewriting of the claim.” Source was required to “perform an objective evaluation of the claim terms” to satisfy its obligation to conduct a reasonable pre-suit evaluation. Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp, 653 F.3d 1314, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2011). By proposing a definition that ignores the canons of claim construction, Source did not meet that standard. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Rule 11(b)(2) sanctions based upon Source’s frivolous claim construction arguments.

Regarding the doctrine of equivalents:

(“[N]either the attorney’s affidavit nor plaintiff’s ‘pre-suit analysis’ . . .[ever] mentioned, let alone analyzed, how Hydrapak’s product infringed Source’s patent under the doctrine of equivalents.”). Counsel was obligated to come forward with a showing of exactly why, prior to filing suit, they believed their claim of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents was reasonable. See View Eng’g, 208 F.3d at 986. Source did not comply with this requirement below. Under these circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding a Rule 11 violation. The cost of $200,054 against Guy Yonay and against Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer was affirmed.

Court of Appeals Federal Circuit, SOURCE VAGABOND SYSTEMS and Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer LLP v. HYDRAPAK, INC., decided June 5, 2014

COMMENTS

I apologize to readers for being tardy in reporting this decision from June 2014. It has only recently come to my attention. Guy Yonay accused me of unfair reporting of the original decision and argued that the judge was clearly wrong, and Zev Pearl accused me of publishing lies. I think this decision, which may be found in full here appeal PCZL vindicates my reporting.

The court is correct that the attorneys are responsible for filing the frivolous law-suit. Why did this happen?

Well, the decision states that “Guy Yonay and Clyde Shuman are partners in the law firm Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer LLP. Prior to the present action, Mr. Yonay prosecuted the ’276 patent application. In the underlying district court litigation, Mr. Yonay signed the original Complaint on behalf of Source, and Mr. Shuman signed the Amended Complaint.”

I would suggest that the first problem is that Yonay apparently prosecuted the claim before the patent office (and may have drafted the application) and then went on to litigate it. This is never good practice. Before litigating one should seek an independent opinion of the chances of prevailing. Yonay could not objectively review the claims he’d prosecuted. He appears to be confused between the purpose of the product and the claimed structure. With mechanical patents one cannot, by obtaining a patent for a specific device, prevent third parties from competing with devices having different structures that are well beyond the ambit of the claims, by arguing that they achieve the desired aim and are thus functional equivalents.

In general, it is ill-advised for the prosecutor of the patent to litigate it in court. Indeed, it is ill-advised for the prosecutor and litigator to belong to the same firm. At least on Appeal, Pearl Cohen took an external counsel, Jenks.

The managing partner of PCZL, Zev Pearl is not licensed to practice in the US. There is, however, a senior partner, Mark Cohen, who is US licensed. Both these gentlemen could and should have prevented the frivolous case being filed. Their failure to do so explains why the courts find the firm responsible and not just Yonay and Shuman.

In a newspaper article on trolls that originated in PCZL was published in the Jerusalem Post and also appears on the Pearl Cohen website, it is implied that only under new Obama legislation, can non-practicing entities be sued for costs in unsuccessful law suits. The implication is that prior to the proposed legislation trolls had nothing to lose by filing frivolous lawsuits and that practicing entities have nothing to lose as they are not trolls. This decision shows the error in this approach. Any entity, whether practicing or otherwise, must have reasonable grounds of validity and infringement to bring a case against a third-party to court. The courts have the authority to sanction the plaintiff and their legal counsel for filing frivolous cases. Pearl Cohen should have known that the interpretation they were giving to the claim was untenable. It was not infringed. The courts were therefore correct in fining PCZL.

 


PCT Filing Fee Reductions in January 2015

December 14, 2014

wipo_pct_logo270savings

The official fees incurred for filing, prosecuting, registering and renewing patents, designs and trademarks in Israel are linked to the cost of living index. Twice a year, on 1 January and on 1 June, they are adjusted. It seems that living in Israel is ever more expensive, and each adjustment makes each fee a few Shekels more.

WIPO works differently. From time to time their fees for PCT related services are adjusted, but not necessarily upwards.

As of 1 January 2015 the basic international filing fee for a PCT application will drip from $1471 to $1384. Excess page fees will drop from $17 a page to $16 a page.

If one elects the EPO as the international Search and Examination Office, the search will cost $2366 instead of the current $2545.

Using PCT Easy saves $104 per application, and filing electronically as XML or similar saves $208. It is possible to combine these and file electronically using PCT Easy, saving $312.

 

 

 

 


Submitting Corresponding European File Wrapper In Israel Patent Opposition Rejected on Procedural Grounds but Decision Overturned by Court

August 18, 2014

tangled web

DSM filed Israel Patent Application Number 142789 for high directional – fibers. The patent claimed priority from Dutch Patent NE 1010413 from 28 October 1998. The patent covers the fibers themselves and both ropes and anti-ballistic equipment fabricated from the fibers.

The Application issued under Section 17c, based on the corresponding United States Patent No. US 6,916,533 and published for opposition purposes in April 2006. DSM also has a couple of corresponding European patent applications. One was rejected and the other, EP 113828, was allowed but with narrower claims.

Mifalei PMS Migun (PMS Protection Factories) filed an opposition which was heard by Adjudicator of IP, Ms Yaara Shoshani Caspi. The opposition proceedings included a hearing on 28 and 29 June 2011, during which the Opposer requested to submit the file wrapper of the corresponding European case, but Ms Shoshani Caspi refused to allow this to be entered. On 17 October 2013, the Adjudicator upheld the patent and rejected the opposition. The Opposer has appealed this decision, particularly the intermediate decision not to allow the file wrapper of the European case to be submitted.

The Appeal

The Opposer filed a long-winded and detailed Appeal that claimed that in addition to factual errors and illogical conclusions regarding novelty and inventive step, the arbitrator also erred on legal principle. Specifically, the Arbitrator did not give sufficient weight to the fact that the Applicant had not made the European file wrapper of record, contrary to the duty of disclosure and the obligation of equitable behaviour. Specifically, the Applicant did not make the fact that one European patent was refused and one was significantly narrowed, concealed a graph and failed to provide an English translation of a Japanese patent cited as prior art, merely providing the Japanese original.  Accepting the case under Section 17c without considering the other family members and applying technical discretion was considered unacceptable, as it transferred the burden of proof to the opposer. Furthermore, the Opposer claimed that the standard of proof that the arbitrator demanded was beyond reasonable doubt rather than simply the burden of evidence generally required in civil procedure. The Opposer challenged the patent office for failing to examine the patent, and for simply relying on the US patent under Section 17c.

The Opposer claimed that when requesting allowance under Section 17c, the applicant should have proactively submitted all corresponding cases, and referred to District Court ruling on the issue.

The Patentee’s Response

The respondent (patentee) argued that the arbitrator had given a detailed and reasoned ruling based on factual and professional issues that the courts didn’t generally consider on Appeal. As to the graph, it was considered irrelevant to the adjudicator’s upholding of the Novelty and Inventiveness of the Application. The patentee rejected the claim that the duty of disclosure required submitting English language translations of all references, unless requested to. The Existence of corresponding European patent applications was alluded to in the file wrapper of the Israel application. Once allowed under Section 17c, there is no longer an ongoing duty of disclosure.

The patentee argued that the appeal was not one against the intermediate ruling concerning the European file wrapper. The appeal was only against the final decision from October 2013. The Patentee considered that the time to appeal intermediate rulings had long past. Furthermore, amending the statement of appeal was insufficient, since this was a separate appeal on the decision, not on intermediate rulings, and a request to amend the ruling was first raised in a hearing in April 2014.

The appellant countered that the original hearing had mentioned the intermediate ruling as grounds for appeal, both in the statement of appeal and in the Statement of Claims, and the intermediate decision was appended to the file. Case-law does not require the appeal to include the protocol. The request to amend the Statement of Appeal was not to introduce this as new material, but merely a safety precaution.

The Ruling

Under regulation 411  of the Civil Court Procedure, in addition to being able to appeal intermediate rulings after they are given, appellant may appeal intermediate as well as final rulings by right when appealing after the final ruling issues. Respondents (Patentee’s) claims that the appeal does not relate to intermediate rulings is not accurate. Point 76.2 of the Notice of Appeal notes that the adjudicator erred in failing to allow the European file wrapper to be entered into the Opposition. The fact that she did not give sufficient weight to the European patent office’s conclusions is mentioned earlier in Point 7.5. Reference is also made in Point 12 and Point 43. This was also fleshed out on 19 March 2014 in Chapter 3(6) of the main claims.

On examining the protocol, this intermediate ruling does not appear under the heading Decision or Ruling. It is scattered over 13 pages of protocol and is not detailed. It seems that the arbitrator was simply over-whelmed with the amount of material submitted. It is only in the final ruling that the decision not to allow the introduction of the European file wrapper is first discussed formally with legal support and so it is reasonable to appeal it when appealing the decision as a whole.

Filing the protocol regarding the intermediate ruling only on 28 Feb 2014, is somewhat unacceptable in that it contravenes Regulation 419(1) of the Civil Procedures. The appellant’s statement that they do not need to submit intermediate rulings and protocol is problematic and they should have submitted it. Nevertheless, since the protocol does not clearly state this as a Ruling or Decision, this flaw may be dealt with when awarding costs.

Citing the Regulations, the Judge noted that the court has the discretion to allow the Statement of Appeal to be amended at any time, awarding costs if necessary, so there was nothing inherently wrong with the appellant’s request to amend the Statement of Appeal. Indeed, contravening the procedural regulations does not disqualify a case in and of itself.

Judge Judith Schitzer was prepared to allow the protocol to be entered and the intermediate ruling to be appealed, despite procedural flaws, and went on to relate substantively to the issues raised by the European file wrapper.

The Arbitrator justified refusing to allow the European file wrapper to be considered on three grounds: the timing, failure to submit an affidavit and a suspicion that the respondent would not be able to cope with the new evidence.

In the ruling, Judge Schitzer  determined that the Adjudicator Ms Shoshana-Caspi should have considered the timing, the relevance of the material in reaching a true and just ruling, the damage to the parties if additional material is allowed to be considered, and whether the other party has the ability to relate to the new evidence.

As to the timing, the Opposer wished to introduce the additional material during the evidence stage and not after this stage was concluded. The Opposer requested to confront the expert witness of the Applicant with the European file wrappers. The Applicant countered this request by claiming that the new evidence should have been submitted at the evidence stage and not during cross-examination of the witness. If there was a delay here, it was a relatively minor delay, and is not comparable to submitting evidence after the evidence stage is closed, or during an Appeal. Citing Gabai vs. Aminach, Judge Schitzer noted that in patent appeals, the appellate court has wider jurisdiction than in other appeals and can hear new evidence if required to in order to get to the truth. How much more so (a fortiori) should the opposition proceeding by prepared to hear new evidence if it will help to clarify whether or not an invention is patentable.

Where one corresponding European patent is cancelled and one is severely narrowed, there is a prima facie basis to assume that the assumption of validity at the basis of a Section 17c allowance is suspect, and the Opposer should be able to have the evidence considered. Furthermore, the European file wrapper is not a surprising piece of evidence. The Applicant mentioned the corresponding European case, albeit laconically and possibly with insufficient detail, but nevertheless, should not be surprised by its inclusion; particularly as DSM was the applicant in Europe. In the circumstances, the European case should have been considered in attempting to do justice. The attempt by the Adjudicator to manage the case efficiently and smoothly is understandable but should not come at the cost of reaching a just conclusion, and the late stage at which the European file wrapper was submitted can be grounds for adjusting costs.

The Judge then cited from a pertinent Supreme Court ruling (1297/01 Michaelowich vs. Clal Insurance LTD) and noted that in patent cases there were a fortiori grounds to be even more lenient.

Furthermore, in the Statement of Case, the Opposer stated that they would refer to corresponding file wrappers, so the Applicant had plenty of time to prepare themselves.  The judge refrained from ruling whether or not the applicant should have been more open in acknowledging the European case. Suffice to say, that when it did come up, they should have related to the issues of novelty and patentability instead of fighting to prevent it being considered.

Judge Schitzer went on to note that the patent regulation 63 actually states that after the end of the evidence stage the parties cannot submit additional evidence without the permission of the Commissioner, implying that prior to the end of the evidence stage they can submit additional evidence, and even after this stage, the Commissioner has the discretion to allow such additional evidence to be submitted and should apply judicial consideration wisely instead of narrowly relying on procedural grounds. Further evidence to this wide discretion was found in Regulation 72.

As to the lack of an Affidavit, the Judge noted that if Ms Shoshana Caspi had felt the need for one, she could have asked for it, but not all evidence actually requires affidavits. Some evidence is self-evident and can be considered on its merits. Indeed, the Opposers raised this issue themselves, stating that the file wrapper speaks for itself.

Since, as ruled in 6837/12 Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. it is preferable for the specialized courts to consider the issue of novelty and patentability, Judge Schitzer referred the case back to the Adjudicator to consider patentability of the claims in light of the European file wrapper.

In conclusion, Judge Schitzer stated that she was refraining from addressing the issue of novelty and inventiveness head on and also was leaving it to the arbitrator to decide whether or not an affidavit was warranted, and if so, to indicate to the parties what the affidavit should include.

Nevertheless, since the Opposer (the appellant) was responsible for the procedural irregularities, despite accepting the Appeal, she awarded costs of 15,000 Shekels against the appellant.

Civil Appeal 34029-01-14 Mifalei P.S.M Migun vs. DSM, Judge Judith Schitzer of Tel Aviv District Court, 12 August 2014.

COMMENTS

I suspect that the judge’s last remark regarding affidavits was tongue-in-cheek. Indeed I have been fighting the Israel Patent Office regarding the need to supply affidavits to support self-evident facts.

The Judge is correct in her analysis and there is a moral here, in that with patent issues it is neccessary to prefer substantive arguments rather than to have awkward material dismissed on procedural grounds.

Somewhat ironically, three days before this decision issued, Ms Shoshani -Caspi ruled against admitting evidence in a second opposition between the same parties!

 

 

 


Judge Randal Rader of the Court of Appeals of the US Federal Circuit Resigns as Chief Judge

May 27, 2014

 The following is largely cribbed from the IPKAT.

Chief Judge Randall R Rader of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has resigned from his role as the head of the CAFC.  

On Friday, Chief Judge Rader wrote a letter to his 18 CAFC colleagues in which he stated:

“I have come to realize that I have engaged in conduct that crossed lines established for the purpose of maintaining a judicial process whose integrity must remain beyond question.  It is important to emphasize that I did not and would never compromise my impartiality in judging any case before me.  But avoiding even the appearance of partiality is a vital interest of our courts, and I compromised that interest by transgressing limits on judges’ interactions with attorneys who appear before the court.  I was inexcusably careless, and I sincerely apologize.”

This emphatic language was as a result of an email that, according to the Wall Street Journal, he had sent to Edward Reines at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP.  In this email Chief Judge Rader had reported a conversation that he had with another member of the court who had “praised the attorney’s performance” and also included the judge’s own praise.  Chief Judge Rader had also encouraged the recipient to show the email to others.  In retrospect, the judge recognized that the email constituted a beach of the ethical obligation not to lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of others. 

Chief Judge Rader

In his letter the judge also referred to having to recuse himself from previous cases.  A few weeks ago, Chief Judge Rader recused himself from two cases in which Edward Reines was appearing– one for Microsoft and another for Medtronic.  The case concerning Microsoft brought by DataTern Inc was judged in favour of Microsoft and SAP.  Judge Rader wrote a dissenting opinion.  A month later, the CAFC reissued its decision, excluding Rader’s dissent and noting he had been recused from the case.  Whether these events are the main cause of his resignation can only be speculation. 

Chief Judge Rader has been on the court for almost 24 years, having been appointed by President George H. W. Bush way back in 1990.  He became Chief Judge in 2010.  His resignation will become effective on 30 May 2014, after which he will remain on the court as a circuit judge. Sharon Prost, who is part of the 18-judge court, will replace him as Chief Judge.   With a background in labour law, Judge Prost was appointed by Dubya in 2001.

COMMENT

Apart from finding his singing abilities short of his enthusiasm, I have only the best to day about Judge Rader. His decisions are well thought out and well written, and he is a charming fellow.

I’ve noted at IP events in Israel where Marshal Phelps had spoken on a case where Rader had an interest, he was quick to leave the room.

Coming from the UK, I expect a person in authority to resign for misappropriate behaviour that might tarnish the office. Unfortunately, this happens less rarely in Israel, where ministers and others hand on to power until they lose in court. The Israeli courts are also seen as politically aligned and less than impartial. In the past, a head of the Jewish Agency, Simcha Dinitz,was found to have used a Jewish Agency credit card for private purchases. The defense that he’d made a genuine mistake was accepted. Things have got better though. A former president is in prison and a former prime minister has been sentenced for corruption. Corruption always exists and the question is how a society deals with it. Rader’s behaviour is honorable. It is a great shame.


Hillel House Hosting BDS Event – trademark implications

February 23, 2014

Hillel's sandwichHillel

Last Friday’s Jerusalem Post had an article concerning a Hillel House hosting a speaker calling for boycotting Israeli goods and divesting, due to the plight of the Palestinians.

Essentially, Swarthmore College’s Hillel House passed a policy stating that they would allow and sponsor any and all organizations and people be they “Zionist, anti-Zionist, post-Zionist, or non-Zionist”. See here. They now intend inviting a speaker who is calling on BDS – boycotting, Divesting and calling on sanctions against Israel because of the Palestinian Issue.

Hillel International has called on Swarthmore College’s Hillel House not to host the event under the auspices of Hillel.

Obviously the issue raises questions of freedom of speech, Antisemitism, anti-Zionism and racism.  It occurred to me that there are also trademark issues involved. A quick look at the USPTO trademark register shows that B’nai B’rith DBA B’nai B’rith International CORPORATION D.C. 2020 K Street, N.W. 7th Floor Washington D.C. 20006 has a trademark for Hillel. See here. (There is also a delightful trademark registration for Hillel’s Angels, for an Association of Motorcyclists, primarily of the Jewish faith that was filed by Wyckoff/Franklin Lakes Synagogue of NEW JERSEY, which has unfortunately, been allowed to lapse).

If Swarthmore College’s Hillel House is affiliated to B’nai B’rith International, presumably the umbrella organization can define what type of events and speakers are kosher.

Hillel International’s policy states:

Hillel will not partner with, house, or host organizations, groups, or speakers that as a matter of policy or practice: 
• Deny the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish and democratic state with secure and recognized borders; 
• Delegitimize, demonize, or apply a double standard to Israel;
• Support boycott of, divestment from, or sanctions against the State of Israel; or 
• Exhibit a pattern of disruptive behavior toward campus events or guest speakers or foster an atmosphere of incivility.

Presumably Hillel International can force Swarthmore College’s Hillel House to abide by the policy or not to use the name Hillel.

Compared to friends at City University, South Bank Poly (University of Greenwich) and elsewhere, I was fortunate to do my undergraduate studies at Imperial College, then a relatively non-political campus. We did have some trouble with the Just Peace in The Middle East Society, the Socialist Workers, and others, but mostly things were calm. In my first year, I ran for the post of religious affairs officer of the Student Union, and, in addition to the Jewish Society, garnered support from the Christian, Moslems and atheist (Huxley) societies, although lost to a candidate supported by the political societies, the largest of which, ConSoc, was the Conservative Society.

Students tend to be political animals, generally irresponsible and immature. I certainly got up to a couple of stunts that with the benefit of hindsight, would consider irresponsible.

I see Swarthmore Hillel’s position as fairly reprehensible.   Since Israel is anyway engaging with the Palestinian leadership, the timing of this is also unfortunate. A Hillel House should try to cater to the Jewish student mainstream. It should be inclusive. I think food should be Kosher. There should be a mehitza for prayers, but it should be minimalist. Let everyone be made welcome. I don’t think that a Hillel House should invite a disciple of Meir Kahanne or a Far Left speaker. I do think that a calm and reasoned debate on settlement and security, democracy and Palestinian self-determination is valuable, but note that it doesn’t happen in Israel, so why should it happen in the US? In general, I think that there are more than enough non-Jewish organizations that are vehemently anti-Israel, without Jewish student organizations joining the bandwagon. 

If any students of Swarthmore College (or any Jewish students studying anywhere) are interested in seeing a West Bank settlement and talking to the residents, I’d be happy to host them.


Super Dooper Patent Prosecution Highway

January 5, 2014

test pilot

Israel and 17 other examining authorities have now set up a Global Patent Prosecution Highway.

The 17 offices involved in the GPPH pilot are IP Australia (IP Australia), Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO), Danish Patent and Trademark Office (DKPTO), Hungarian intellectual property office (HIPO), Icelandic Patent Office (ELS), Israel Patent Office (ILPO), Japan Patent Office (JPO), Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO), National Board of Patents and Registration of Finland (NBPR), Nordic Patent Institute (NPI), Norwegian Industrial Property Office (NIPO), Portuguese Institute of Industrial Property (INPI), Russian Federal Service for Intellectual Property (ROSPATENT), Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (SPTO), Swedish patent and registration office (PRV), United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (IPO), and United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). 

An application first examined in one, may, if at least one claim is found to be novel and inventive, be used to accelerate Examination in other pilot jurisdictions.

COMMENT

I suspect that with just about everything being fast-tracked, the system will probably break down. One wonders if a pile up on the Worldwide Superhighway could result in everything grinding to a halt. Still, there are no human test pilots, so no harm done.

The PCT, was, of course, supposed to achieve this. If, instead of ignoring PCT search reports, the various national phase jurisdictions would consider their findings, I suspect that backlogs could have been dealt with years ago.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 565 other followers