Archive for 'Patent'
Written by: Friedrich Scheele, Christopher H. Blaszkowski After the UK’s June 2016 Brexit vote, it seemed almost certain that London would not ratify the Unitary Patent Protection agreement (UPP) and, as a result, would not become one of the seats of the Unified Patent Court (UPC).
Posted: December 1st, 2016 under Patent.
Written by: Kenneth N. Nigon, Stephen D. Harper & Alyssa M. Pugh On May 4, 2016, Robert Bahr, Deputy Commissioner For Patent Examination Policy at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), published a memorandum to the examining corps (Memorandum) clarifying how the examiners should analyze claims for subject matter eligibility. On the same date, [...]
Posted: May 9th, 2016 under Patent.
Written by: Sunjeev S. Sikand This article first appeared in the January 25, 2016 edition of IP Law360 A January 4, 2016 article in IP Law360 raised several issues regarding the USPTO’s handling of the December 2015 power outage, including the USPTO’s statutory authority to declare the power outage days as federal holidays and vulnerabilities of [...]
Posted: February 3rd, 2016 under Patent.
Written by: Benjamin E. Leace & Christopher H. Blaszkowski This article first appeared in the February 3, 2015 edition of the Legal Intelligencer Inter partes review (IPR) is a powerful alternative or supplement to patent litigation that permits a party to challenge a patent’s validity before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In fact, [...]
Will Patent Reform Legislation Curb “Abusive” Litigation? – A Look at Fee-Shifting and Enhanced Pleading Under H.R. 9 and S. 1137
Written by: Benjamin E. Leace & Christopher H. Blaszkowski This article appeared in the August 5, 2015 Edition of The Legal Intelligencer Patent reform is again looming on the horizon. Legislators are again focused on curbing the “abusive” litigation practices of patent trolls. The House and the Senate have released competing legislation this year, respectively [...]
Written By: Brett J. Rosen & Lisa Mead Should your company spend additional resources to file a new patent application for purely defensive purposes? How should you respond to a cease and desist letter claiming that your company’s product, which has been commercially available for the past five years, is infringing a patent that issued [...]
Posted: January 13th, 2015 under Patent.
Written By: Kenneth N. Nigon and Brian P. O’Shaughnessy The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued revised guidelines for determining patent eligible subject matter following recent groundbreaking precedent, including Alice Corp., Mayo, and Myriad. The guidance substantially alters the USPTO’s earlier, more restrictive examination procedures and instructions to examiners, and address the implications [...]
Written By: Kenneth N. Nigon The America Invents Act (AIA) changed U.S. patent law from a first to invent (FTI) system to a first inventor to file (FITF) system. This change took effect on March 16, 2013, when the new 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 became effective. While some questions about the new law [...]
Posted: October 30th, 2014 under Patent.
Written By: Sunjeev S. Sikand This article appeared in theSeptember 25, 2014 Edition of IP Law 360 At the heart of nearly every patent litigation is a dispute over the meaning of claim terms. Such disputes often arise in the form of a claim definiteness challenge by the accused infringer. Recently, in Nautilus v. Biosig1, [...]
Written By: Sunjeev S. Sikand This article appeared in the July 22, 2014 Edition of IP Law 360 In proceedings before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, whether a reference is publicly accessible and therefore qualifies as a prior art printed publication depends on the "facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of [...]