Quantcast

Posts Tagged: Patent Drafting


Estimating US patent costs is a difficult matter because so much depends on the technology involved, but answering "it depends" is not particularly insightful or helpful. What follows are some general ballpark estimates, which should give at least some …

Continue Reading

Without a patent search you will invariably describe all aspects of the invention with equal importance, although we know from experience that there will always be certain features that deserve greater attention because they will contribute more to patentability. …

Continue Reading

It is absolutely essential to think outside the box when describing your invention in any patent application. Stop and think about different ways that your invention can be made or used, even if you deem them to be inferior. …

Continue Reading

The Disclosure Revolution is an ongoing process that has transformed patent law over the last couple of decades. While courts continue to say, “The claims define the invention,” decision after decision rewrites broad claim terms to conform to the …

Continue Reading

You want to capture everything you possibly can in a patent application. That means generally describing the invention, it also means specifically describing the invention and all the different versions (called “embodiments” in patent speak). The only power of …

Continue Reading

Drafters need to think both outside and inside the claims. Outside thinking aims to make the court’s task easier by providing claim terms amenable to straightforward, simple claim construction. Preferably, at least, the key terms are expressly defined, …

Continue Reading

No question exists that patent eligibility under Section 101 has been, and remains, the most active question in patent law. Watching the rapid flow of cases back and forth between the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court exceeds the excitement …

Continue Reading

Explaining the function of the invention is helpful, but only explaining something in terms of function leaves many questions unanswered because it is not terribly descriptive. For example, assume you are unfamiliar with a couch. If I were to …

Continue Reading

'Broad' in this context means 'broadest supportable' coverage, limited only by the technology in terms of supportability and by the prior art in terms of outer reach. A failure to achieve such breadth is generally attributable to overclaiming, where …

Continue Reading

To bring this principle to bear on the problem of claim breadth, consider a patent disclosing only a single embodiment, with a main claim whose scope extends beyond that of the embodiment (yet inside the ambit of any cited …

Continue Reading

Patent prosecutors have responded to the Disclosure Revolution in much the same way that clergy and medical doctors responded to the Black Death. Medieval doctors offered incantations and ritual; patent lawyers recite boilerplate. Neither is particularly …

Continue Reading

It is also vitally critical for inventors to understand that the strength and breadth of your disclosure will be determined not only by the general descriptions, but by the specific descriptions that explain various embodiments.  Inventors frequently want to …

Continue Reading