Daniel Hanson
Daniel Hanson
is Senior In-House Patent Counsel for Huawei Canada who has worked with a number of law firms and corporations, including BlackBerry Ltd. in Canada. His practice focuses upon patent preparation and prosecution. The views expressed are his own.
Photo credit: Thanks to Rod MacIvor
Posts by Daniel Hanson
Saul v. Carr: The SCOTUS Social Security Decision Patent Practitioners Should Read
On April 22, 2021, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Carr v. Saul, which dealt with a constitutional Appointments Clause challenge to Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) …
Pardon Me, But What Is the Point of Deciding Whether or Not a Reference ‘Teaches Away’?
"Teaching away" is a concept important to obviousness analysis under U.S. patent law. "Teaching away" basically bears upon the issue of motivation to combine elements in …
Conventional Patent Wisdom Revisited
The time is upon us when young patent professionals, many of them fresh out of law school (or out of engineering school) begin their professional lives as …
Focusing on the Details: What Two Recent USPTO Matters Can Teach Us About Patentability Analyses
Two matters currently pending before the United States Patent and Trademark Office illustrate the consequences of focusing upon details of a claim rather than upon the claimed …
‘Now We Know’ – Lessons in Preserving Constitutional Error Before the USPTO
In 2019, the issue of preservation of constitutional arguments before the USPTO, which had basically been dormant for a decade, was abruptly and dramatically revived. Now the subject …
TQ Delta Reminds Me: May We Dispense with the Puzzle Simile?
In KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the United States Supreme Court discussed legal principles of obviousness in the patent context. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote …
Proving a Negative Claim Limitation: A Tale of Three Nonprecedential Cases
In the past 10 months, the issue of proving negative claim limitations has cropped up on appeals to the Federal Circuit. At least three panels of the Federal …
Are All Safety-Related Inventions Obvious After Celgene?
The case of Celgene Corp. v. Peter, Nos. 2018-1167 et al. (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2019) has drawn attention for its decision that inter partes review (IPR) may be …
Don’t Let Experts Testify as to Obviousness
When obviousness of a patent claim is at issue, some experts may opine along these lines: "Therefore, the subject matter of claim 1 would have been obvious before …
Arguing Device-and-Method Eligibility Under the Present and Future States of U.S. Patent Law
Here's the hypothetical: A patent application has been filed for a new medical device. The device reads various physiological signals from a patient and presents, with previously …
Distinguishing Colloquial Obviousness and Legal Obviousness
Have you ever worked with a lay inventor who had a hard time dealing with obviousness under U.S. patent law? Many patent lawyers have. It is …
How to Be an Effective Advocate When Responding To Examiners
You're a patent prosecutor. You've just received an office action. The examiner has rejected your claims. You think the examiner got it wrong. On the technical issues, …
Sounds Fishy: Can Broadening Language Actually Be Limiting?
In a previous essay, I discussed a U.S. Supreme Court case that had nothing to do with patent law, but that patent practitioners may wish to …
Elgin v. Dept. of the Treasury and Preserving Constitutional Issues Before the USPTO
Those who practice in the field of patents tend to focus almost exclusively upon developments in patent law and pay less attention to developments in other areas …
