Skip to main content

Intellectual Property

Viewpoints

Filter by:

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.
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.
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. 
On June 19, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) handed down another unanimous opinion in a closely watched patent case. Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank International addresses patent eligibility of computer-implemented inventions.
In Actavis Group HF v. Eli Lilly & Co. the UK High Court has granted a declaration of non-infringement in the UK, France, Italy and Spain. A jurisdictional challenge in relation to the French, Italian and Spanish jurisdictions was rejected.
The Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States have rarely reached consensus on any issues this term. However, they achieved unanimity in two patents cases recently, which may have a significant impact on you and your patent portfolio.
Our colleagues in the Employment, Labor & Benefits practice are hosting a free webinar on May 28th about drafting effective non-compete agreements and other restrictive employment covenants.
On Monday, May 5, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, by transferring the Microsoft v. Motorola case to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, issued an order which may significantly impact the ability of participants in standard-setting organizations (“SSOs”) to obtain relief for patent infringement.
On April 29, 2014, Senators Christopher Coons (D-Del.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), both members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced the Defend Trade Secrets Act (S. 2267), a proposed amendment to the Economic Espionage Act of 1996, which made trade secret theft a federal crime.
Lack of clarity is not a ground for opposition before the EPO, but can be raised against amendments filed during the opposition proceedings. In accordance with Article 101(3) EPC, any amendments made to a granted patent during opposition proceedings must meet the requirements of the European Patent Convention.
The International Trade Commission (ITC) issued its much-awaited decision in Certain Digital Models on April 3, 2014, affirming in a decision with important implications for the software and media industries that digital importation is within the jurisdiction of the Commission.
On March 10, 2014, Sonos announced it would forward-publish its patent applications before they would traditionally be available to the public. This has given rise to quite a bit of discussion in patent legal circles.
On March 4, 2014, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued a memorandum to the Patent Examining Corps with guidance for determining the patent eligibility of claims relating to products of nature and laws of nature (“the Guidance”) in view of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Assoc. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics (“Myriad”) and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (“Prometheus”).
Recently, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Novartis v. Lee (2013-1160, Fed. Cir., Jan. 15, 2014) which alters Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) calculations for patents where a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) was filed during prosecution.

EPO Divisionals Update

January 10, 2014| Blog

In October 2013, we reported that the EPO had removed the time limits for filing divisional applications. An outstanding detail at that time was the level of the fees that would be levied for filing second or any subsequent generation divisional applications.
The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) gives applicants the opportunity to accelerate the examination of their patent applications in multiple countries once they have received a favourable report in one country.
Recent years have seen a surge in the number of investigations before the United States International Trade Commission (ITC), owing to the promise of speedy resolution combined with the leverage that accompanies the threat of an exclusion order. 
The European Patent Office (EPO) has announced rule changes that will provide applicants with the option to have additional searches carried out during the European regional phase of Euro-Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications.

Divisionals U-Turn at the EPO

October 22, 2013| Blog

News broke last week that the European Patent Office's (EPO) Administrative Council has decided to remove the time limits for filing divisional applications. As of 1 April 2014, applicants will be able to file divisional applications at any time whilst an application is pending at the EPO.
After an en banc hearing at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), questions remain about the patent eligibility of software under US Patent and Trademark Office rules (specifically, § 101). 
Sign up to receive email updates from Mintz.
Subscribe Now

Explore Other Viewpoints: