Filewrapper

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 →

Priority claim to foreign filing awarded in interference; disclosure in compliance with section 112

The Federal Circuit yesterday addressed the requirements for the use of a foreign filing date as a priority date in a U.S. interference proceeding. The court awarded the interference party the priority benefit of the foreign filing date based on the "constructive reduction to practice of an invention whose disclosure is in compliance with the […]

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 →

Another patent invalid after KSR, with help from an innovative online litigation strategy

Peter Zura has an interesting post about a case in the Eastern District of Texas (one of the most popular districts for patent cases to be filed) where a patent was held to be both anticipated and, failing that, obvious in light of KSR. The court also addressed the concept of joint infringement, which the […]

Continue Reading →

Attorney cannot directly appeal finding of inequitable conduct absent formal sanctions

The Federal Circuit today addressed whether a prosecuting attorney who was found to have committed inequitable conduct during an infringement suit of the patent prosecuted may intervene to contest the finding. The court held that when an attorney is merely criticized by the court, not formally reprimanded, they have no standing to appeal. As a […]

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 →

Second Circuit: Advertisement can be literally false even if no explicitly false assertion made

Yesterday the Second Circuit handed down a decision concerning a preliminary injunction that clarifies false advertising under the Lanham Act, especially regarding the use of images in advertisements. In an opinion containing the unlikely combination of pop icons William Shatner and Jessica Simpson, the court adopted the "false by necessary implication" doctrine and concluded that […]

Continue Reading →

Judge sanctions Qualcomm for concealing over 200,000 pages of documents, providing false testimony

It's been a rough week for Qualcomm. On Monday, the Bush administration let stand the ITC ruling barring import of mobile phones using certain Qualcomm chips unless a license fee is paid to Broadcom, a competing company who holds patents covering the power management technology used in the chips. Also Monday, a federal judge in […]

Continue Reading →

Priority claim under section 119 denied; foreign application not filed “on behalf of” U.S. applicant

Today the Federal Circuit addressed whether priority to an earlier-filed foreign application may be claimed under § 119(a) if there was no legal relationship between the foreign applicant and the U.S. applicant at the time the foreign application was filed. The court held that the right of priority under § 119(a) is personal and determined […]

Continue Reading →

$1.5 billion infringement verdict against Microsoft vacated

A judge in the Southern District of California yesterday set aside a $1.5 billion infringement verdict against Microsoft in favor of Alcatel-Lucent (more detail on the facts of the case can be found in this post). The judgment was the largest ever in a patent infringement lawsuit, and has been used as an example (see […]

Continue Reading →

Stay in Touch

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

Sign Up