Skip to main content

Intellectual Property

Viewpoints

Filter by:

The Innovation Act introduced in the House on February 5, 2015 is designed to curb patent abuse, but as currently drafted it doesn't address the worst forms of the problem.
The general rule is that a patent claim’s preamble does not limit the claim unless the preamble breathes life and meaning into the claim. The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Pacing Techs. v. Garmin Int’l, No. 2014-1396 (Feb. 18, 2015) highlights some application drafting choices that, under post-issuance scrutiny, resulted in limitations being read into an independent claim.
From 1 March 2015, a new agreement will come into force that allows European patents to be validated in Morocco. This is the first time that a non-member country of the European Patent Organisation will have recognised European patents as national patents.
On February 6, 2015, a US District Court issued a ruling which underscores the territorial nature of trademark rights and the need to seek formal protection for your marks where possible in all countries of interest.
The Japanese Patent Act was revised on May 14, 2014 to provide for post-grant oppositions within one year of the rule change, i.e., by May 14, 2015 (the exact effective date has not yet been set). Under the new opposition system, any party, including non-interested parties and straw men, will be able to file an opposition within 6 months of patent issuance and thus potentially cause invalidation soon after patent grant.
On Thursday, February 5, 2015, the en banc Federal Circuit heard oral argument in the matter of Suprema, Inc. v. ITC, reviewing its controversial panel decision holding that in ITC investigations induced infringement cannot be found where no direct infringement occurs until after importation.
What do sports fans, party-goers, third-party advertisers, and any non NFL affiliated businesses have in common? No legal right to use the words “SUPER BOWL” without the risk of trademark infringement!
On January 9, 2015, the Federal Register published final rules implementing changes to patent term adjustment (PTA) in view of Novartis v. Lee, which the Federal Circuit decided last January. The new rules affect patents where a request for continued examination (RCE) was filed during prosecution.
The Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) recently released its 2014 Annual Report evaluating a variety of programs at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and recommending that the USPTO take certain actions with respect to those programs.
Patent applicants from the software and business method fields took notice after the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, et al. (“Alice,” 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)) on June 19, 2014, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) followed with preliminary guidelines (“Guidelines”) issued June 25, 2014 for examining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of claims relating to a judicially created exception to patent eligibility.
Scientific or technical journal writers like scientists, doctors, engineers, and academics are usually introduced early to the importance and strategy of writing and publishing papers, but patent applications having those same professionals as inventors are usually not so well explained and can be more of a mystery.
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.
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 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.
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.
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. 
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.
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.
Sign up to receive email updates from Mintz.
Subscribe Now

Explore Other Viewpoints: