Filewrapper

USPTO Data Visualization Center

Have you ever wondered how long the typical time before a first Office Action in a pending patent or trademark application is?  Or am I the only one waiting for some months after filing an RCE to have my patent application reexamined?  Or what is the average length of time a patent application or trademark […]

Continue Reading →

USPTO Offers New Pilot Program for After Final Responses

The USPTO has implemented the “Post-Prosecution Pilot”referred to as the “P3 Program.”The goal of the program is to reduce the need for appeals by providing a more robust after final, pre-appeal program. The P3 Program essentially blends two existing programs: the After Final Consideration Pilot and the Pre-Appeal Brief Conference Pilot. The After Final Consideration […]

Continue Reading →

Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB Obviousness Decision for the Board’s Failure to Adequately Articulate an Obviousness Rationale

In Black & Decker, Inc. v. Positec USA, Inc., a non-precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent and Trial Appeal Board’s (PTAB) finding of obviousness of two claims.  The appeal arose from an Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 5,544,417 owned by Black & Decker directed to a string trimmer.  The PTAB […]

Continue Reading →

USPTO Releases New Guidance on Life Sciences Patent-Eligible Subject Matter

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued new guidance for Subject Matter Eligibility of Life Sciences patents. A memorandum with the subject “Formulating a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection and Evaluating the Applicant’s Response to a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection” was released May 4, 2016. The Memorandum was accompanied by a new set of […]

Continue Reading →

USPTO Issues Rule Amendments for Trials Before PTAB

The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued finalized amendments to the rules for trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The updated rules were issued in a Federal Register Notice on April 1, 2016, which may be found here. The rules put into final form most of the amendments proposed on August 20, […]

Continue Reading →

Tracking the Mayo Effect: Study Examines Personalized Medicine Patent Applications after SCOTUS Decision

The US Supreme Court decided Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. in 2012, effectively redefining the scope of patent eligible subject matter, particularly with respect to biotechnology and personalized medicine. Subsequent decisions by the Court in Myriad and Alice have confirmed what many prognosticators had predicted: a wide-spread broadening of the judicially-created exceptions to patent […]

Continue Reading →

“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 […]

Continue Reading →

Avoiding Pitfalls in European filings Subsequent to Filing a United States Patent Application

When filing a European patent application subsequent to a United States patent application, via Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) or otherwise, it is essential to draft the claims (and preferably the written description) with an eye to, and a working knowledge of, the intricacies of European Patent Laws. Merely appending foreign filing documents to a copy […]

Continue Reading →

Applying the USPTO Guidance on Patent Eligibility of Software

                The Supreme Court’s June 25, 2014 decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., was anticipated as being the case to decide once and for all whether software is patentable. Many were worried the decision would cause the demise of software patents while others hoped it would secure the future […]

Continue Reading →

Sales, Public Disclosure, and the One-Year Grace Period

The America Invents Act (AIA) changed a number of provisions in the Patent Act (Title 35, U.S.C.). While many of these changes have not yet been subjected to scrutiny through litigation, a large number have been the subject of analysis by the USPTO, by virtue of their implementation into the rules of patent examination. Among […]

Continue Reading →

Stay in Touch

Receive the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Sign Up