Filewrapper

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 →

USPTO Issues Preliminary Guidance on Patentability Based on Alice Corp.

On June 25, 2014 the USPTO Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy released aMemorandum to the Patent Examining Corps that provides examiners with preliminary instructions related to subject matter eligibility of claims involving abstract ideas under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank […]

Continue Reading →

USPTO Glossary Pilot Program

The USPTO has instituted a new program, the Glossary Pilot Program, which began June 2, 2014. The program will allow applicants for computer-related inventions to petition to make special entry into the Glossary Pilot Program with the filing of an application. Applications accepted into this pilot program will receive expedited processing and be placed on […]

Continue Reading →

Federal Circuit Finds Clones Unpatentable

The Federal Circuit issued its opinion in In re Roslin Institute, a case involving cloned animals. The Roslin Institute (Roslin) owns a patent for methods of cloning animals, based on the work that created Dolly the Sheep. The inventors of that patent also assigned to Roslin an application claiming protection for the clones themselves. During […]

Continue Reading →

“Insolubly Ambiguous” Standard not Applicable at the USPTO

InIn re Packard the Federal Circuit held that the USPTO need not follow the insolubly ambiguous standard in order to satisfy a prima facie rejection for indefiniteness. Rather, the Federal Circuit held that when the USPTO has initially issued a well-grounded rejection that identifies ways in which language in a claim is ambiguous, vague, incoherent, […]

Continue Reading →

USPTO Issues New Examination Guidelines for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility

The basic requirements for filing a U.S. utility patent are rather straightforward. Patents are granted for new, useful and non-obvious processes, products or compositions of matter. Similarly, any new, useful and non-obvious improvement to these categories of inventions may be granted a patent. Although seemingly straightforward, the three basic requirements for patentability are impacted by […]

Continue Reading →

Federal Circuit Clarifies Patent Term Adjustment

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an opinion that provides guidance for how Patent Term Adjustments should be calculated. Between June 2009 and May 2011, Novartis filed four civil lawsuits against the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) in the United States District Court for the […]

Continue Reading →

Bring on the New Year – What is in Store for IP in 2014?

Happy New Year to all of our FilewrapperÒ followers! We hope 2013 was a productive year and wish you the best in 2014. As the New Year quickly approaches we would like to share with you a few predictions for 2014 for you to look forward to and for which to prepare! · Increased opportunities […]

Continue Reading →

USPTO Proposes Rule Changes for International Design Applications

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is seeking comments on it proposed rules for implementing the provisions of Title I of the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012. The law is the implementing legislation for the 1999 Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs (“the Hague Agreement”). The […]

Continue Reading →

New and Useful – August 26, 2013

· InUniversity of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, the Federal Circuit held that a patent lawsuit between a state university and the officers of another state university is not a controversy between two states. The case began when the University of Utah (“UUtah”) sued the Max Planck Institute and the University of Massachusetts (“UMass”) to correct inventorship […]

Continue Reading →

Stay in Touch

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

Sign Up