Filewrapper

Five things not to do when prosecuting patent applications

In a decision yesterday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's judgment of patent unenforceability as a result of inequitable conduct on behalf of the applicant. The court affirmed that five different actions on the part of the patentee constituted inequitable conduct:1. Failure to identify the association between the applicant and the individual providing a […]

Continue Reading →

USPTO gives applicants a bit of a break during transition to new continuation and claim limit rules

In an announcement yesterday, the USPTO clarified some aspects of the new continuation and claim limit rules. Of particular note are the following: For applications filed before November 1, 2007, applicants need not identify all applications and patents having a common inventor, common assignee, and a priority date within two months. Applicants will still have […]

Continue Reading →

USPTO publishes post-KSR obviousness examination guidelines

The USPTO guidelines for obviousness rejections post-KSR appear in today's Federal Register. The full guidelines can be found here, and are similar to the draft guidelines that surfaced some time ago. In a nutshell, examiners will officially have seven rationales upon which an obviousness rejection may rely: Combining prior art elements according to known methods […]

Continue Reading →

Are the new continuation and claim limit rules the “cure all” for the USPTO?

It looks like the USPTO is hoping that the new rules limiting the number of claims and continuation applications will solve its problems in other areas, particularly examiner retention. Last week, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report entitled "U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: Hiring Efforts Are Not Sufficient to Reduce the Patent Application […]

Continue Reading →

Second Circuit: retroactive assignment cannot cure past infringement claim by co-author

The Second Circuit yesterday issued a decision regarding whether an action for infringement brought by one co-author of a song can be defeated by the grant of a "retroactive" transfer of ownership to the infringer from a co-author who is not party to the infringement action. The case involved licensing and litigation regarding authorship of […]

Continue Reading →

The clear target of the new continuation and claim limit rules: Thomas Edison

This was received over email today. While we have not verified the information, it shows that the new rules arguably do not "Promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts." THANK GOODNESS FOR COMMISSIONER DUDAS AND HIS NEW RULESBefore the new rules, one New Jersey inventor amassed 394 patents with more than 5 independent claims, […]

Continue Reading →

Denial of interim patent term extension affirmed

In a decision rereleased as precedential yesterday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction seeking to compel the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to grant a request for an interim patent term extension under 35 U.S.C. § 156(e)(2).Somerset Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Somerset") is the owner of a […]

Continue Reading →

First Circuit: Reconstruction of work does not meet deposit requirement for copyright registration

Tuesday, the First Circuit issued a decision regarding the Copyright Act's requirement of submission of a "copy" of an original work along with the registration of the work in order for a plaintiff to bring suit in federal court. The court held, as an issue of first impression in the circuit, that the copy submitted […]

Continue Reading →

Claims to using product made via another claim are dependent claims, noninfringement affirmed

In a battle between two agricultural heavyweights, Monsanto and Syngenta, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's ruling that Syngenta did not infringe two Monsanto patents and that a third was invalid for lack of enablement. The patents relate to tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. The court affirmed the district court's claim construction, noting that […]

Continue Reading →

Agreement to assign to employer requires separate assignment; dismissal for lack of standing vacated

In a decision released late Friday, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a district court's decision that a plaintiff did not have standing to sue for patent infringement. At issue was whether a joint inventor of the patent had assigned his interest in the patent to a third party, thereby making the third party a […]

Continue Reading →

Stay in Touch

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

Sign Up