Kip Werking
Kip Werking has been practicing intellectual property law for over a decade and is registered as a patent attorney before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Kip previously worked with multiple patent law boutiques where he assisted dozens of technology companies in preparing and prosecuting patent applications. He has extensive experience working with the following technology areas: displays, projectors, xerography, electric vehicles and batteries, digital cameras and optics, games and artificial intelligence, cellular networks, and software security systems.
Posts by Kip Werking
Director Iancu Could Address Section 101 Problems Through Regulations Governing Post Grant Review Trials
Since U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Andrei Iancu took office, I have observed, with admiration, how he has taken bold action to improve perceived …
Alice’s Tourniquet: A Solution to the Crisis in Patentable Subject Matter Law
The Supreme Court’s own precedents provide overwhelming authority for interpreting § 101 broadly and, conversely, interpreting its judicial exceptions to § 101 narrowly. These precedents provide ample support for the …
Bias in Both Directions: Patent Reform Should Protect Both Accused Infringers and Inventors
What’s stunning about this list is that almost nobody talks about reforming patent law to correct these biases! In general, the only biases that are socially …
Ex Parte Yudoovsky: Petitions Are (Sometimes?) Unnecessary to Traverse Unauthorized New Grounds of Rejection on Appeal
The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did something fascinating in Ex Parte Yudoovsky. The Board sua sponte declined to consider an unauthorized new ground of rejection—…
The Ghost of Lemelson: PTA Consequences of Exelixis v. Kappos
On November 1, 2012, a federal district court (EDVA) issued an order that may have profound consequences for calculations of patent term adjustment (“PTA”). The district court believed that …
Against the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of Patent Claims
Even if the BRI rule made sense in 1932—and it is not clear to me that it ever made sense—the rule no longer makes sense. Dramatic …
The Illogic of the Algorithm Requirement for Software Patent Claims
Recently, patent scholar Mark Lemley has renewed attention to software claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Lemley encourages strict application of the algorithm requirement to police …
75% – The Real Rate of Patent Applicant Success on Appeal
The biggest myth about patent appeals is that that the examiner usually wins. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) posts that it reverses examiners only one …
