http://www.ipwatchdog.com Patents, Software Patents, Patent Applications & Patent Law Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:45:32 +0000 en-US hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/03/27/prometheus-what-are-we-to-make-of-all-this/id=23537/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/03/27/prometheus-what-are-we-to-make-of-all-this/id=23537/#comments Tue, 27 Mar 2012 12:16:31 +0000 Charles Gorenstein http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=23537 Related posts:

1. Killing Industry: The Supreme Court Blows Mayo v. PrometheusThe sky is falling! Those who feel the Supreme Court's decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. is terrible are right, although many won't likely fully apprehend the gravity of the situation at first. Those in the biotech, pharmaceutical and chemical industries have just been taken out behind the woodshed and summarily executed by the Supreme Court this morning. An enormous number of patents will now have no enforceable claims. Hundreds of billions of dollars in corporate value has been erased. But that might be a good thing. Immediate attention now must turn to Congress. Thank goodness that...
2. Prometheus Diagnostic Methods Are Patentable Subject MatterUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in one of the patentable subject matter cases that was returned to the Court by the Supreme Court in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Bilski v. Kappos. On remand, once again, the Federal Circuit held (per Judge Lourie with Judge Rader and Judge Bryson) that Prometheus’s asserted method claims are drawn to statutory subject matter, reversing for the second time the district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity under § 101....
3. Prometheus v. Mayo – The Wrong Rat?A decision with the right outcome but for the wrong reasons can confound jurisprudence nearly as much as a decision that is entirely wrong. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that all that found its way into the Siedman patents was the results of the very research that had been recommended in the 1996 paper and which Prometheus had been prompted to under-write. The more natural objection which, unfortunately, was not pursued was therefore lack of inventive step under 35 USC §103. It is submitted that this should have been enough to dispose of the issue between the parties,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/03/27/prometheus-what-are-we-to-make-of-all-this/id=23537/feed/ 3 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/02/27/compact-prosecution-in-the-uspto-is-anything-but-compact/id=22482/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/02/27/compact-prosecution-in-the-uspto-is-anything-but-compact/id=22482/#comments Mon, 27 Feb 2012 22:06:16 +0000 Charles Gorenstein http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=22482 Related posts:

1. U.S. Patent Office Issues Supplementary 112 GuidelinesOf course, it will be most useful for patent examiners to review and truly internalize the guidelines, but there is some excellent language here that is quite practitioner and applicant friendly. There is explanation of situations where a rejection should be given, but more importantly from a practitioner standpoint will be those examples and illustrations of when a rejection is not appropriate. The discussions of what an appropriate Office Action should include will no doubt be particularly useful as well as practitioners try and hold examiners feet to the fire to provide the type of information required in order to...
2. Making Progress with Difficult Patent ApplicationsSome patent applications are difficult to get agreement on. The examiner won’t allow and the applicant won’t abandon. The net result is that office actions and responses go back and forth with no apparent resolution in sight. We propose that progress with these difficult patent applications can be tracked by looking at two separate but interrelated metrics, “applicant effectiveness” and “examiner effectiveness”. These two metrics can then be used to diagnose and correct problems in patent prosecution and examination....
3. Making it Easier to Get a PatentContrary to popular belief, things are getting much better in business methods. Applications filed in 1999 had prosecution times of over 10 years (lower green arrow). These and subsequent applications jammed up the system leading to excessive delays to first office actions. Applications filed in 2004, for example, had delays to first office action of 6 years (middle red arrow). Sometime around 2010, however, things started to improve. A lot more patents started issuing and the delays to first office action dropped to around 2 years (upper red arrow). That’s not to say that it’s easy to get a patent...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/02/27/compact-prosecution-in-the-uspto-is-anything-but-compact/id=22482/feed/ 8 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/11/27/the-america-invents-act-panacea-or-just-pain-for-the-pto/id=20584/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/11/27/the-america-invents-act-panacea-or-just-pain-for-the-pto/id=20584/#comments Sun, 27 Nov 2011 13:00:40 +0000 Charles Gorenstein http://ipwatchdog.com/?p=20584 Related posts:

1. Prior Art Under America Invents: The USPTO Explains First to FileIf (B) gives a blanket exclusion to subject matter, which cannot be used as prior art after a disclosure by an inventor, that would lead to nearly ridiculous results. Imagine for example that an inventor discloses a specific embodiment of a coffee cup and then subsequently another who did not derive independently comes up with and discloses a coffee cup with a lid. If (B) does more than relate to a personal grace-period the subsequent disclosure could not be used against the first to publish inventor as prior art because it relates to the same "subject matter." That would mean...
2. USPTO Publishes Proposed First to File Examination GuidelinesFor well over a year I have been explaining that under the US first to file system the inventor will still have a personal grace-period, but that the grace-period is personal and relates only to the inventor’s own disclosures, or the disclosures of others who have derived from the inventor. Disclosures of third-parties who independently arrived at the invention will be used against the inventor. Now that the USPTO has come out with examination guidelines we find out the truth. I was right all along. ...
3. Some More Heretical Thoughts on Strategies for Coping with First to File Under the America Invents Act*So what does this AIA “mumbo jumbo” mean in plain English? Well, to me and especially to others who have previously opined on this provision of the AIA, it means you not only don’t blow “novelty” in the U.S. by “publishing” the subject matter of your claimed invention (although you’ll blow “absolute novelty” elsewhere, including Europe, unless you do what I suggest below), but you can essentially “foul the nest” of others that follow after your “published” date. Even better, when you “publish” the subject matter of your claimed invention, you also put a non-patent application “date stake” in the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/11/27/the-america-invents-act-panacea-or-just-pain-for-the-pto/id=20584/feed/ 8 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/09/19/con-troll-over-patent-litigation/id=19279/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/09/19/con-troll-over-patent-litigation/id=19279/#comments Mon, 19 Sep 2011 19:50:38 +0000 Charles Gorenstein http://ipwatchdog.com/?p=19279 Related posts:

1. America Invents: A Simple Guide to Patent Reform, Part 1There will be plenty of time to drill down on the particulars of the America Invents Act. The Act is dense, language choices from section to section in some places change and in other places remains the same, making you suspect that different terms must mean different things but the same term in different places has to mean the same thing, right? That being said, I thought I might take this opportunity to provide a high level overview of the America Invents Act.  What follows is discussion of 5 provisions contained in the Act.  Look for an overview breakdown of...
2. Patent Litigation Investors Follow the Money to the ITCThe avalanche of patent assertion entities (PAE) cases, in the ITC and District Court, exists because the PTO issues hundreds, if not thousands of patents that can be asserted against every minute feature and functionality of tech products and services. The overwhelming majority issued to so-called inventors who played no part in developing these features and functionalities, including to patent mills that specialize in stalking the development of technology standards and obtaining claims they hope will read on those standards. And tech patent applications often pend (through continuations) for 10 years or more, enabling patentees to intentionally draft claims to...
3. Patent Reform Doesn’t Prevent Rise in Patent Litigation?I fail to see how the increase in individual suits suggests in any way, shape or form that the AIA has failed. Because there was a spike in litigation leading up to September 16, 2012, and because the AIA by its express terms requires more patent infringement cases of smaller scope, patent reform has failed. Unbelievable! How can something fail when it is working as intended?...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/09/19/con-troll-over-patent-litigation/id=19279/feed/ 3