As a public service, we present Apple's handy guide to not infringing the iPad or iPhone with your tablet PC or smartphone (Hat tip to ITworld.com):

(UPDATED December 30, 2011)

We thought it was interesting when we read that PIEtech, Inc., a company in Powhatan, Virginia, actually asked to be a defendant in a patent infringement lawsuit that involved one of its clients.

In August, PIEtech's competitor (and neighbor in Richmond, Virginia) Wealthcare Capital Management, sued the large Wall Street firm UBS Financial for infringement of patents for a “Method and System for Financial Advising”. Both patents were issued last summer.

By David Ziskind, IP Counsel - In a December 12, 2011 PatentlyO blog entry, Patent Law Analysis by Professors Dennis Crouch and Jason Rantanen[1], the authors notice a trend that average patent application pendency has leveled off (and in fact has begun to recede to a time period of three years or less) in the years between 2010-2011.

Normally this blog isn't known for keeping up with any of the (many, and seemingly interchangeable) Kardashians, but we couldn't pass this one up: A resident of Beverly Hills has filed for a trademark on the name "KardashianLash," and the Kardashian clan is not amused.

Sarah Ehrlich applied for the trademark for use with a "medicated liquid eyeliner for the purpose of enabling eyelash growth." She plans to use the proceeds from the sales of this product to send Honduran orphans to cosmetology school.

As if the news weren't already sufficiently preoccupied with Occupy Wall Street stories, we bring you another one. But instead of featuring the exploits, arrests or debauchery of bored college kids living off their capitalist pig parents, let us tell you the tale of some good old American opportunists making a beeline for the Trademark Office.

Filing a patent infringement lawsuit against Facebook had a happy ending for WhoGlue, a "relationship-management-software developer" recently acquired by the social networking giant.

WhoGlue sued Facebook in September 2009 for infringment of U.S. Patent No. 7,246,164, which was awarded to WhoGlue in 2007 for a “Distributed personal relationship information management system and methods.”

Sometimes a patent claim is drafted in such a way that, as a practical matter, it can’t be infringed. Without such direct infringement, there can be no indirect infringement, i.e. no contributory infringement, nor any inducement to infringe. Sometimes this annoying little detail escapes patentees eager to enforce their patents. Moreover, some patentees seem to confuse the possibility an item was used in an infringing manner with actual infringement. (PrivaCash, Inc. v. American Express Company et al.)

In its recent landmark Bilski non-decision, the Supreme Court held that the now-famous “machine-or-transformation test” (MOTT), although “a useful and important clue,” is not the sole test for determining the patentability of process claims. Fortunately for the legion of lawyers who will now earn vast sums of money litigating the question, the Court did not indicate what other test might apply. Well, to the chagrin of the lawyers, the Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit (CAFC) has now stepped in to fill the vacuum.