MVS Filewrapper – Blog:Ways to Accelerate Patent Examination Before the USPTO – Part 2 As discussed in a first posting earlier this week, there are a few options to patent applicants to combat the long pendency, slow processing and delays in examination before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The First Action Interview (FAI) Pilot Program was discussed as one option to expedite the pace of patent […] Continue Reading →
STEM Education Linked to Increased Innovation, Patenting An interesting new discussion paper from John V. Winters at Oklahoma State University highlights the connection between foreign and native college graduates with science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) degrees and per capita patenting. The data appear to disclose that the amount of STEM degrees per metropolitan area significantly increases the amount of patents issued […] Continue Reading →
Ways to Accelerate Patent Examination Before the USPTO Long pendency, slow processing and delays in examination due to patent backlog before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are common concerns voiced by patent applicants. Although it may provide some comfort to know that backlogs are decreasing and overall examination timeframes are improving, many patent applicants remain frustrated while waiting in line […] Continue Reading →
Is the Supreme Court Re-Aiming Markman? The 1996 United States Supreme Court decision in Markman v. Westview Instruments established a landmark change for claim construction in patent infringement cases. That case established that the meaning of the claim language of a patent is a matter of law for a judge to decide, and not a matter of fact that should be […] Continue Reading →
USPTO Issues Report on Virtual Patent Marking Under the AIA Among the provisions of the America Invents Act that went into effect on September 16, 2011 was a change to the patent marking provisions contained in 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). Marking an article as with a patent number provides constructive notice to the public that the article is patented, and failure to appropriately mark an […] Continue Reading →
Legitimate Advocacy and Genuine Misrepresentation of Material Facts The Federal Circuit has issued a decision inApotex Inc. v. UCB, Inc., upholding a district court's finding that Apotex's U.S. Patent No. 6,767,556 ("the '556 patent") is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Dr. Sherman, founder and chairman of Apotex, wrote the '556 patent application and is its sole inventor. The '556 is based on Canadian […] Continue Reading →
Critical Versus Optional, but Desireable Claim Elements On August 6, 2014, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in ScriptPro, LLC v. Innovation Associates, Inc. In 2006, the Petitioner ScriptPro, LLC sued Innovation Associates, Inc. for infringement of claims 1, 2, 4, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 6,910,601 ("the '601 patent"). The '601 patent describes a "collating unit" that […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit Invalidates Patent Claims As Non-Patentable Subject Matter The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's recent decision in Digitech Image Technologies v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., upheld a decision that patent claims directed to a collection of numerical data that lacks a physical component or manifestation as well as an abstract idea of organizing data through mathematical correlations are invalid. The […] Continue Reading →
Court of Federal Claims Confirms Payment of Maintenance Fees Still Required A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ("CFC") has upheld the statutorily-mandated maintenance fees required by the USPTO in order to keep issued patents in force. The owner of an issued patent must pay maintenance fees to the USPTO three times during the lives of their issued patents to keep them in […] Continue Reading →
USPTO Patent Invalidation Precludes Judicial Equitable Remedies and Sanctions The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued a decision inePlus, Inc. v. Lawson. ePlus sued Lawson asserting infringement of two patents—U.S. Patent Nos. 6,023,683 ("the '683 patent") and 6,505,172 ("the '172 patent"). At trial, the district court held two of ePlus's asserted system claims and three of ePlus's asserted method claims […] Continue Reading →