For the past three weeks the eyes of the sporting world have been focused on South Africa, as the 32 top national teams battle in the World Cup finals. The U.K.’s Guardian reports that the tournament has provided attorneys in the host nation with a windfall of business opportunities. Most of the work is related to the registration and enforcement of FIFA’s trademark portfolio. Soccer’s governing body is highly concerned with enforcing its trademarks and preventing the sale of pirated and knock-off merchandise during the tournament. In addition to the upswing in IP-related legal work, attorneys are anticipating a surge in criminal cases and insurance claims as close to four million visitors descend on the country. The report also noted that the government has undertaken an investigation of some of South Africa’s airlines for violations of competition laws. Specifically, the companies are accused of colluding to install artificially high fares during the tournament.

And then there are the vuvuzelas, the small horns responsible for the continuous drone that has annoyed spectators and players alike since the opening kick. Attorneys in South Africa are readying to tackle countless tort claims seeking damages for hearing loss caused by the trumpets. Those racing to lock up trademark and patent rights in the instruments may find themselves already out of luck. A search of European Community’s trademark database reveals that a German company registered the mark in February 2010. On the other hand, the South African company who applied for protection in the U.S. in 2005 abandoned it in 2008. Potential patentees may have an easier time taking advantage of vuvuzela fever. A search of the U.S. patent database did not reveal any patents or published applications for an embodiment of the instrument. As the tournament continues into its knock-out stages, the work for attorneys is not likely to show signs of slowing down anytime soon.

In what has been considered the first official inter-agency meeting regarding the impact of patent rights on competition policy, members of the DOJ, FTC, and PTO gathered on May 26th at the PTO to discuss, in part, how the backlog harms competition, as well as potential solutions.  Participants noted that when investors are uncertain about what patent rights inventors will actually obtain, they are less likely to provide funds to inventing companies.  Similarly, uncertainty limits contracting between inventors and commercialization partners.  Delay in the patent application process contributes to this uncertainty.  Additionally, without some predictability in what intellectual property will be claimed by inventors in a particular area of technology, potential competitors will be hesitant to enter this area.

John F. Duffy, a professor at the George Washington University Law School, offered a solution to the backlog and its secondary effects.  Duffy’s, self-labeled, “radical” idea involves removing the PTO’s monopoly on patent prosecution.  He argued that the centralized bureaucracy of the PTO is no longer the most efficient organization with today’s means of communication.  He noted that examiners are allocated about 20 hours to examine each application, yet the time between application and final disposal is often up to five years.  Duffy proposed that efficiency could be increased by eliminating international duplication in patent applications through increased deference to foreign examination.  In reaching a solution to the backlog, Duffy encouraged rethinking “examination as not a government function, but like contracting for expert services.”

It appears that Duffy’s idea is sensible, especially since examiners often rely on international search reports, when available, to conduct their own searches.  While it may be “radical,” this does not mean that the proposal is impractical.  The PTO already outsources private companies, such as Cardinal IP, for PCT searches.  Perhaps a gradual approach to decentralization by incrementally outsourcing more tasks of the PTO could assist with some of the backlog issues.

The FTC has opened a formal investigation into Intel’s pricing practices.  The investigation seeks to determine whether Intel engages in predatory pricing and represents a new round in the global legal wrangling between Intel and AMD.