First lawsuit to stop implementation of continuation and claim limit rules filed As reported on Patently-O (and predicted here), yesterday a lawsuit was filed against the USPTO and its director, Jon Dudas, to prevent implementation of the new rules limiting continuations and the number of claims in patent applications (expect a more detailed post about the new rules later today). The lawsuit alleges that the regulations are […] Continue Reading →
New continuation and claim limit rules: the good, the bad, and the ugly After having some time to parse out the details of the new rules promulgated by the USPTO on Tuesday, a few things jump out. For the most part, they could have been worse, but from the perspective of patent applicants, the new rules will likely result in more expensive applications, narrower coverage, and potentially the […] Continue Reading →
New continuation rules published As noted yesterday, the new continuation rules have been published in today's issue of the Federal Register. The bulk of the publication is responses to the numerous comments sent to the USPTO after the rules were initially published in January 2006. The introductory material explains the gist of the new rules, and runs from page […] Continue Reading →
Continuation and claims rules to publish tomorrow, August 21st, will take effect November 1st Tthe USPTO announced in a press release today that it will publish in tomorrow's Federal Register the final rules on continuation applications and the number of claims. The rules will take effect November 1, 2007. The USPTO describes the rules in its press release: The new rules have been modified, relative to the rules that […] Continue Reading →
More new USPTO rules on the way, this time for information disclosure statements and Markush claims The USPTO rulemaking machine just keeps chugging along. In today's Federal Register, there are new USPTO proposed rules regarding claims using "alternative language," such as Markush claims. Also, on July 27, the USPTO submitted new rules regarding information disclosure statements (IDSs) to the OMB for review. These rules look as though they adhere to the […] Continue Reading →
Revised TTAB rules published, some take effect August 31, others November 1 As noted last week, the revised TTAB rules were published in today's Federal Register. The final rules are somewhat different than those proposed last January. Some of the new rules include: Opposers/Petitioners will serve copies of the notice of opposition or cancellation petition on the opposing party directly, rather than having the TTAB send out […] Continue Reading →
USPTO proposes new BPAI rules to cope with upcoming increase in appeals In a Federal Register notice yesterday, the USPTO promulgated revised rules for practice before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The USPTO will accept comments on the proposed rules until September 28, 2007 via email, fax, or postal mail. Many of the proposed rules appear designed to advance the USPTO's current trend toward finding […] Continue Reading →
Continuation and claims rules to publish “later this summer,” will take effect 60 days later In a press release today, the USPTO announced that the much-rumored new rules regarding continuation applications and claim limits recently approved by the OMB will publish in the Federal Register "later this summer," and will take effect 60 days after publication. The USPTO notes that the abstracts published with the OMB reflect the abstracts from […] Continue Reading →
Senate Judiciary Committee passes Patent Reform Act of 2007 out of committee On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed its version of the Patent Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1145, House version H.R. 1908) out of committee by a vote of 13-5. The bill is cosponsored by the chairman of that committee, Senator Patrick Leahy, who issued a press release regarding the passage. As with the House […] Continue Reading →
Patent Reform Act of 2007: moving forward? Today the House Judiciary Committee sent the Patent Reform Act of 2007 (H.R. 1908 and S. 1145) out of committee to the full House of Representatives for consideration. The amended version (found here, as it has not been updated on the Library of Congress site yet). The controversial damages apportionment provisions are still present in […] Continue Reading →