| Tuesday, September 1st, 2009 |
6:33 pm
[judith_s]
 |
Inter Partes Reexam question
I have an interesting scenario. There is a small client that has gotten one of "those" letters. They're thinking about requesting an inter partes reexam. But they don't have money. The idea was raised that they ask the other small companies that have gotten identical letters to chip in, and they request the reexam together. So, in such a situation, who would be the "real party in interest"? Would it be the requester? Or does it need to include all parties who contributed to the fund? Disclaimer: It's just a scenario. |
| Sunday, May 31st, 2009 |
4:16 pm
[pezzonovante]
 |
Prior Art Search costs
So does anyone know what the going rate is to get a prior art search? I'm working on trying to price out my own services and don't really have a good guide to go from. |
| Friday, February 27th, 2009 |
5:47 pm
[judith_s]
|
|
| Wednesday, December 31st, 2008 |
2:43 pm
[edgehopper]
 |
102(b) question?
Does anyone know if a post to a friends-locked LJ counts as 102(b) prior art, assuming a small group of friends (under 50)? Seems like an interesting question, and one that's actually relevant to something I'm working on. |
| Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008 |
10:34 am
[roh_wyn]
 |
Tafas v. Dudas PTO Appeal
The USPTO filed its brief, requesting CAFC review of the lower court decision in Tafas v. Dudas. The PTO's primary argument is that the lower court's interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 2(b) is incorrect. That is, the PTO does have the requisite rulemaking authority for the new continuation rules. If my understanding is correct, section 2(b) allows the PTO to make rules and regulations that govern procedural aspects of obtaining a patent, but the PTO has no legislative rulemaking authority, i.e. the Office cannot make any rules that would (a) abridge a substantive property right, or (b) the responsibility of Congress. I realize I'm reading a lot into the "not inconsistent with law" proviso in section 2(b), of course. Since limiting the number of continuations does affect a substantive (if prospective) property right, how is the PTO going to win on this argument, if at all? |
| Wednesday, June 18th, 2008 |
9:38 pm
[roh_wyn]
|
Patent Bar
Totally lacking in relevance to anything in this community, but I passed the PTO's registration exam today. Go me! :) I should have done it ages ago, but I'm really lazy...er, something more important always came up. ( Some interesting observations about the exam ) |
| Friday, May 30th, 2008 |
12:13 pm
[littlebluedog]
 |
making the rounds
In this OA, the Examiner cites the publication of the app under examination as prior art. I'm not sure which is worse: the app being cited against itself or the fact that some of the claims are considered to only be obvious in light of the reference. |
| Friday, April 11th, 2008 |
11:43 am
[roh_wyn]
|
|
| Friday, February 1st, 2008 |
7:00 am
[doorslam]
 |
Patent Reform Act
Former PTO Commissioner Gerald Mossinghoff and former PTO Deputy Commissioner Stephen Kunin have written a summary and analysis of the 2007 PRA that passed the House last year and is making progress in the Senate. They argue that the bills contain some serious flaws that need to be addressed before enactment, but overall they support many of the reforms. It's a pretty good read. --(link)-- |
| Friday, January 18th, 2008 |
3:44 pm
[judith_s]
|
|
| Thursday, January 17th, 2008 |
11:26 pm
[lachellabella]
 |
Patent Advice
I found out that a classmate of mine, has stolen a business idea that I had for our class together last quarter and is bragging to everyone in the program that he has patented the idea and plans on making it "big"! What kills me is that he is acting like what he did is not ethically wrong and that he is convincing everyone into thinking that it's different...It's NOT. It's exactly the same. Fucker! To complicate things even more, a 2nd classmate of mine wants to go into business with him and basically told me tonight..."It's basically a rip off from what we were talking about last quarter." He conveniently left out that it was MY idea and tried to play it off that it wasn't a big deal and that he was the better man for "running" with the idea. BULLSHIT! This guy has been in this country for only 10 months and is already trying to get a piece of the American Dream by stealing another person's idea? Great! And he was a pain in the ass in the group because all he did was complain and whine about the business ideas (all of which were mine) and NEVER contributed any original idea or plan himself. I guess he was being shady and laying low so I wouldn't suspect he actually liked my idea for his own selfish purposes. Shady! Slimy! I don't know what to do. I can't help but feel betrayed, ripped off, annoyed and angry all at the same time. Any advice? Current Mood:  pissed off |
| Thursday, December 13th, 2007 |
1:53 pm
[judith_s]
|
Proposed Patent Laws have a lot of fans (in China)
From a mailing list I read: From: Pat Choate A semi-official analysis by the Beijing IP Institute of S.1145 and H.R.1908 is available at http://docs.PIAUSA.org/ChinaAnalysis12-4-07/. The author is Mr. Cheng Yongshun, one of China's top IP experts and someone involved with interpreting foreign patent laws to that Government. A description of the Institute, which is a think tank for the Government and Cheng's bio. have talked with someone who knows Cheng and affirms his expertise. See: < http://docs.PIAUSA.org/BIPI/> http://docs.PIAUSA.org/BIPI/. The article will be very controversial once it becomes more widely distributed. Therefore, the translation has been certified. Cheng's conclusion is that the bill will "weaken the right of patentees greatly, increase their burden, and reduce the remedies for infringement." He also notes, in conclusion: "This bill will give the companies from developing countries more freedom and flexibility to challenge the relative US patent for doing business in US and make it less costly to infringe." The article contains many other important conclusions. While Congress may not believe a Ron Riley or Pat Choate or hundreds of American companies and inventors and universities that this bill will weaken U.S. patents, maybe they will believe China's top patent expert. The Chinese do. Pat ---- I'm hoping that this might wake up the folks advocating for the new laws and make them realize that the new rules might be dangerous. Cross-posted. |
| Wednesday, October 31st, 2007 |
4:02 pm
[roh_wyn]
|
PTO Statement
The PTO issued the following statement today: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a final rule notice in the Federal Register to revise the rules of practice in patent cases relating to continuing applications and requests for continued examination practices, and for the examination of claims in patent applications. See Changes to Practice for Continued Examination Filings, Patent Applications Containing Patentably Indistinct Claims, and Examination of Claims in Patent Applications, 72 Fed. Reg. 46716 (Aug. 21, 2007) (Claims and Continuations Final Rule). The final rule notice published in the Federal Register indicates that the effective date for the changes to the rules of practice in the Claims and Continuations Final Rule is November 1, 2007. On October 31, 2007, the United States District Court for the Eastern District Court of Virginia, however, issued a Preliminary Injunction enjoining the USPTO from implementing the changes in the Claims and Continuations Final Rule. Therefore, the changes to the rules of practice in the Claims and Continuations Final Rule will not go into effect on November 1, 2007. USPTO employees are to continue processing and examining patent applications under the rules and procedures in effect on October 31, 2007, until further notice." |
10:29 am
[roh_wyn]
|
Glaxo wins!
From the PLI blog: "I have just received word from John White, who is at the hearing in the Eastern District of Virginia, that GlaxoSmithKline has prevailed and that the Patent Office has been enjoined from making the the Final Rules on claims and continuations effective. The status quo previals [sic]!" So who else is doing the happy dance right about now? ;) ETA: Apparently, the parties are on their way over to the Federal Circuit for an emergency appeal. This should be interesting... ETA2: I can't decide whether to laugh or cry at some of the ineptitude the PTO is showing in this case. Details here. |
| Tuesday, October 23rd, 2007 |
7:28 pm
[girlvinyl]
 |
DMCA for non US citizens
This is a bit obscure, but I am wondering if a Non-US citizen can file a DMCA notification. Or if someone can file a DMCA notification and use a Non-US mailing address. |
| Thursday, October 11th, 2007 |
4:10 pm
[littlebluedog]
|
heads up: PTO clarifies claims and continuations rules
The USPTO is clarifying certain provisions of the rules and making some procedural adjustments. An Official Gazette notice describing these changes is available HERE, and will be published in the Official Gazette on November 6, 2007. I still can't tell if there's any advantage gained, in terms of the "one more" rule, in filing a continuation before November 1, 2007. Anyone? A clarification that significantly eases quite a bit of administrative burden is that the identification requirement as pertaining to pending applications has been toned down a bit (specifically, by waiving the two-month range). |
| Wednesday, October 10th, 2007 |
12:52 pm
[roh_wyn]
|
Post-KSR Examination Guidelines
Today's Federal Register featured the USPTO's Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness after KSR. I haven't had a chance to have a full read-through, but I thought to post it here for your edification (or entertainment, if you will). New 103 Guidelines |
| Friday, September 7th, 2007 |
4:51 pm
[roh_wyn]
|
Patent Reform in the News
It looks like the House has passed the recent proposed Patent Reform bill. However, the Bush Administration apparently does not support all aspects of the proposed legislation. At this point, I'm not sure what the fallout from this will be. I'm still trying to absorb the intricacies of the new continuation rules! |
| Tuesday, August 28th, 2007 |
9:28 am
[littlebluedog]
 |
so ...
How bout them new rules? |
| Monday, August 20th, 2007 |
10:02 am
[roh_wyn]
|
New Rules To Be Published
In case anybody didn't know about this already... USPTO to Publish Measures to Improve Patent Quality --Claims and Continuations Rules will improve effectiveness and efficiency of patent examination The Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will publish tomorrow in the Federal Register new rules that will allow the agency to continue to make the patent examination process more effective and efficient by encouraging applicants to use greater precision in describing the scope of their inventions. The new rules will be effective on November 1, 2007. ( Rest behind the cut ) |
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif){kind=small}
patentgeeks