Posts Tagged: "Practising Law Institute"

The “new normal” created by the PTAB has drastically altered the patent assertion landscape. Simply stated, when a patent owner is notified that a patent they own is being brought into a post grant proceeding the statistics, if not the gravity of the threat, suggest that it must be taken seriously immediately and competent representation must be obtained quickly. The burdens are different at the PTAB than they would be in the Federal District Court. Specifically, the PTAB will employ the standard USPTO technique of giving patent claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, which will make it easier for a claim to be determined to overlap with the prior art. Furthermore, in litigation patent claims are presumed valid and the defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that a claim is invalid for one or more reasons.

Fashion law has become as diverse, complex and global as the fashion industry itself. Fashion law can be analogized to entertainment, art or sports law, in that it is circumscribed by the nature of a particular industry, but is comprised of many distinct substantive practice areas of law. One way to describe fashion law is to say that it is the body of law and legal principles that governs the relationships among the various participants in the fashion industry, the relationships between such participants and the consumer, and the relationship between such participants and various governmental entities.

Those days are long gone, for nearly a decade now, but when you do take the examination you will be provided with an electronic copy of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedures. Don’t fool yourself though — the fact that this is an “open book” exam does not mean that it is easy or that you will be able to “wing it” and rely on the MPEP as a crutch. Many people have difficulty finishing the exam and it is a recipe for failure to simply plan to rely on the MPEP to get you through the exam. This is particularly true today where much of the examination is based on new material not found in the MPEP and only available in Federal Register Notices.

Perhaps the most ridiculous suggestion given (step 8) is to download the free PTO Patent Bar Exam Review Package from CNET. The WikiHow article explains that this free package contains MPEP 8th edition revisions 1 and 2. Why would you ever want to even consider the 8th edition revisions 1 and 2 when you will be tested on the 8th edition revision 9? Revision 9 was published August 2012. Revision 1 was published February 2003 and revision 2 was published May 2004. Why would anyone who is at all serious use materials that are a decade old to take an exam that is constantly being updated and refreshed with new materials? If you study the wrong MPEP edition you have absolutely NO chance to pass the patent bar exam.

Kappos explained that the PTAB has started and will continue, in at least some cases, to issue shorter per curiam decisions, which will allow them to decide more cases and move through the backlog. Co-Chair of the program, Rob Sterne, asked Kappos whether this would present problems for those who might want to appeal to the Federal Circuit. Given the standards applied by the Federal Circuit will it be possible for an applicant ever be able to satisfy the standards? Kappos acknowledged that is a concern and why we will see hundreds of shorter per curiam decisions rather than thousands. Kappos explained that the USPTO wants these types of decisions issued only when the record is extremely clear, making a detailed decision of the Board less necessary.

A new addition to the program just announced today is David Kappos, who is the immediate former Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Kappos, a life-long employee of IBM prior to taking charge of the USPTO, is now with Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP in New York City. Kappos will discuss the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, specifically discussing ex parte reexamination, the remaining legacy inter partes reexamination cases, inter partes review and the transitional program relating to covered business method patents. His segment will run from 9:15 am to 10:15 am. In addition to being presented live in New York City the program will also be webcast.

Generally, the Patent Exam remains as predictable as ever in terms of what the USPTO wants you to know. The USPTO concentrates on those issues that lead to loss of rights and prejudice to your client’s situation. They want to be sure you know how to get a filing date, assert priority, respond to Office Actions, start and advance an appeal, etc. As to the post-grant procedures added by AIA Phase 2, the focus is on how they are started, timing, and thresholds of proof.

Yes, this may be appropriately characterized as coming from the shameless commerce division, but at least some will probably want to know that the PLI Patent Litigation treatise has been recently refreshed to include some important updates. Even if you do not own the treatise, or who don’t plan on buying it, would probably still be interested in this readers digest length version of the updates to various important patent law matters published below. This snapshot-update is provided courtesy of PLI. Furthermore, PLI offers this free sample chapter, which relates to Damages and Attorneys Fees. Who doesn’t like free stuff?

Alissa J. Holterman is the Assistant Director of Career Services at Loyola University Chicago School of Law, has been the primary administrator of for the last 5 years. Holterman says there are objective signs of improvement in the patent job market for new and recent law school graduates, and real reason for optimism. “This year there will be 123 employers are coming to PLIP, and they’ve asked for a total of 232 day-long interview schedules. That’s almost a 20% increase in employers since last year, and more than a 20% increase in interviews, ” says Holterman. “That’s more employers and interviews than any year since 2008.”

When determining whether to accept a particular course one particularly important consideration is whether the course has been accepted for college-level credit for a Category A degree at an accredited U.S. college or university. We know that the USPTO will accept courses taken at Community Colleges if those courses would count toward a degree listed on Category A. Indeed, some who are short credits will take them at Community Colleges and then be admitted to take the exam. The same rationale seems to apply when OED is evaluating online courses. So before you take a class at a Community College or online make sure that the credits for the course could be used by someone pursuing a Category A degree. If the answer is that the course would count toward the credit requirements for a Category A degree you should be fine.

The posting says that the purchaser will acquire a version of the course that was first purchased in March 2012 and includes 36 audio CDs, 8 video DVDs and Patware 9.0.  That is simply not possible because by March 2012 the courses being sold did not include any of this.  John White and I updated the course at the beginning of 2011 to take into account the then newly tested material, which included KSR rationales and guidelines, Bilski guidelines and the 112 guidelines.  At this time in the beginning of 2011 audio CDs and DVDs ceased to be provided, and Patware was no longer available in disk form. The last version of Patware on disk was indeed Patware 9.0, but that did not include any questions on KSR, Bilski or the 112 guidelines.  Simply stated, a course that included audio CDs, DVDs and Patware on disk had to have been purchased at the very beginning of 2011 or earlier.  The claims in this ad are simply false.

In cooperation with the Practising Law Institute, I will be giving away 1 free PLI Patent Bar Review Course to one lucky individual. Entry is free, but to be eligible you must vote for IPWatchdog.com and tweet the vote count after your vote.

Beginning January 31, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office will update the content of the patent registration examination to cover two new rules issued September 26, 2011 that relate to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. These new rules permit prioritized examination of patent applications (Track I) and revise the standard for granting inter partes reexamination requests. Additionally, the patent registration examination will also include questions concerning the November 22, 2011 rules governing practice in ex parte appeals before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.

As the second largest economy in the world, China is emerging to the center of the world’s economic stage. This emergence has been accompanied by constant changes in its legal and economic sectors. The intellectual property sector also has witnessed numerous recent changes. There have been significant new advances in China’s national innovation policies. New trends in Chinese patent filings have emerged. A growing number of Chinese companies are creating their own IP and increasingly filing infringement suits against foreign companies and their local competitors in China. China’s third patent law amendment has materially changed patent practice and procedures in that country.