Roll Call: Are all Inventors Accounted for in a Foreign Filing with the EPO?

By Blog Staff

Earlier this month, the European Patent Office (“EPO”) explained why it upheld a decision revoking a patent applied for by Broad Institute of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard (“Broad Institute”) related to CRISPR gene editing. In particular, the decision cited a lack of novelty due to an invalid claim to priority—for inadvertently failing […]

Meet DABUS: An Artificial Intelligence Machine Hoping to Maintain Two Patent Applications in its own Name

By Blog Staff

Three patent offices face questions stemming from the growing implications of artificial intelligence (AI) disrupting the intellectual property legal framework. The United States Patent Office (USPTO), European Patent Office (EPO), and United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) recently received two patent application filings directed to a beverage container and a flashing device used for attracting […]

“Unavailable” Joint Inventor after the America Invents Act

All applications for United States patent must include an oath or declaration signed by each inventor. The oath or declaration must be furnished to the United States Patent and Trademark Office no later than the date on which the issue fee is paid, but preferably on the same day as the non-provisional application is filed to […]

Inflammatory Post

StoneEagle v. Gillman – Patent Inventorship, Authorship, and Ownership

In StoneEagle Services, Inc.,v. Gillman the Federal Circuit confirmed that assistance in reducing aninvention to practice generally does not contribute to inventorship. In this case, the issue centered on whether there was a sufficient controversy regarding inventorship for the case to remain in federal court. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had "falsely claimed that […]

New and Useful – April 5, 2013

· In Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. the Federal Circuit clarified several points relating to claim construction, determinations of non-obviousness, and calculation of damages. The court confirmed that claiming a “circuit” in conjunction with a sufficiently definite structure for performing the identified function is adequate to bar means-plus-function claiming. The court also […]

New and Useful – January 31, 2013

· In Soverain Software LLC v. Newegg Inc. the Federal Circuit vacated in part and reversed in part an Eastern District of Texas decision finding Newegg Inc. liable for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,715,314, 5,909,492, and 7,272,639, all relating to electronic commerce. The Federal Circuit offered clarifying insight on the obviousness doctrine. The background […]

Use of Foreign-conceived Invention in U.S. Not Sufficient to Support 102(g)(2) Defense

Section 102(g)(2) of the Patent Act creates a “prior inventor” defense to patent infringement. In Solvay SA v. Honeywell International, the Federal Circuit considered whether use of an invention by a third party within the United States prior to a patent’s priority date satisfies the prior inventor requirement of 102(g)(2), when the third party did […]

Explanation of prior art element in dependent claim insufficient to confer inventor status

In a decision Thursday, the Federal Circuit reversed a summary judgment of dismissal for lack of standing by the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The district court held that one of the defendant's employees was a coinventor of the patent-in-suit, and because he had not joined as a plaintiff, the plaintiffs did […]

Purported inventor who waited eight years to file suit could not overcome presumption of laches

In a decision yesterday, the Federal Circuit upheld a district court's grant of summary judgment due to laches and applicable state statute of limitations in an inventorship case. The plaintiff, having waited more than eight years after finding out about the patents to file suit, claimed that an intervening reexamination should have reset the time […]