Skip to main content

Intellectual Property

Viewpoints

Filter by:

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued revised guidance to its examiners relating to determination of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101.

For the First Time PTAB Upholds Validity of Pharma Patents

December 15, 2014 | Blog | By Dave Cotta

On December 9, 2014, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) upheld the validity of three Supernus Pharmaceutical’s patents relating to once-daily formulations of doxycycline.

CAFC Finds Patent Claiming Software-Related Invention is Patentable

December 10, 2014 | Blog | By Matthew Karambelas, Sean Casey

For the first time since the Supreme Court’s Alice Corp.  v. CLS Bank Int'l decision this past summer, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has found that a patent claiming a software-related invention was patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (with Judge Chen writing the majority opinion).
Courts in the last two years have grappled with what methodology to apply to determine a reasonable royalty rate for infringed patents subject to “Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory,” or “RAND,” encumbrances.
On February 5, 2015 the en banc Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in the matter of Suprema, Inc. v. ITC., Case No. 2012-1170 (Fed. Cir.).
On February 5, 2015 the en banc Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in the matter of Suprema, Inc. v. ITC.

ALJ Lord Amends Ground Rules to Permit Reply Briefs

November 24, 2014 | Blog | By Aarti Shah

On November 17, 2014, Administrative Law Judge Dee Lord amended her Ground Rules to permit parties filing motions to file a reply brief without first seeking leave from the ALJ.

Indefiniteness: Are You Reasonably Certain?

November 21, 2014 | Blog | By Pedro Suarez, Tom Jackman

The indefiniteness standard has, until recently, been very high—only an “insolubly ambiguous claim” was considered indefinite (see, e.g., Honeywell Intern., Inc. v. International Trade, 341 F. 3d 1332, 1338–9 (Fed. Cir. 2003))—but recent events have made it easier to invalidate a claim as being indefinite.

Tips for Writing Effective PTAB Appeals Briefs

November 13, 2014 | Blog | By Christina Sperry

Your patent application has been rejected – again. You are ready to file an appeal brief with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and tell three Administrative Patent Judges that the examiner is wrong. 

New European Unity Rules in Effect November 1, 2014

November 3, 2014 | Blog | By Christina Sperry, David Wraige

Good news for European patent applicants! On November 1, 2014, amended Rule 164 of the European Patent Convention (EPC), which was previously analyzed by Global IP Matters, finally went into effect.
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) was signed into law on September 16, 2011. While the AIA alters U.S. patent practice in several ways, perhaps the most significant change brought about by the law is the switch from a “first to invent” to a “first inventor to file” system, largely for purposes of harmonizing U.S. practice with the majority of other countries.
September 16, 2014, marked the two year anniversary since certain provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act went into effect, including post-grant Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Electronically Signing USPTO Papers: There’s a Rule for That

October 20, 2014 | Blog | By Christina Sperry

Ten years ago, on September 21, 2004, the USPTO implemented the portion of the 21st Century Strategic Plan permitting the use of electronic or mechanical signatures, called “S-signatures,” on papers filed at the USPTO.

Tune in to the Global IP Marketplace

October 8, 2014 | Advisory

Mintz Levin is constantly monitoring the global IP marketplace, and we like to keep our clients and friends aware of impactful developments. Below is a summary of last week’s patent-focused Global IP Matters blog posts. 
Two recent Federal Circuit decisions emphasize that characterizing the “present invention” by using that term in a U.S. patent application specification can limit the claims according to that characterization.
On October 1, 2014, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) announced the After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 (“AFCP 2.0”) – a program intended to provide new features that will enhance communication between the USPTO and the applicant, as compared with the original After Final Consideration Pilot (“AFCP”).
The Federal Circuit recently denied en banc review of its prior decision dismissing a patent infringement suit where a co-owner of the patent-in-suit refused to join the case voluntarily and the court held that it could not force the co-owner to join the suit involuntarily.

Marking of patented products in the UK

October 1, 2014 | Blog | By David Wraige, Julian Crump

The first parts of the new UK Intellectual Property Act 2014 come into force today. The act will introduce a range of new measures, one of which is that it expands the options available to patent proprietors for marking patented products.

What’s Happening with Patents at the USPTO? Chief of Staff Byrnes has Answers!

September 19, 2014 | Blog | By Lisa Adams, Linda Azrin

On September 16, 2014, United States Patent and Trademark Office Chief of Staff Andrew Byrnes presented to the Boston Patent Law Association an update on new quality initiatives and the implementation of White House patent policies.

ITC Judge Essex Adds His Voice to the SEP-FRAND Debate

July 11, 2014 | Blog | By Sandra Badin, Michael Renaud

Administrative Law Judge Essex of the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) recently issued the public version of his decision in ITC investigation No. 337-TA-868. 

Explore Other Viewpoints: