Posts in Patent Basics

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) launched their INSPIRE (Index of Specialized Patent Information Reports) “database of databases” on November 4, 2020. It provides useful summaries of patent databases to help both novice and expert patent searchers identify the most suitable search system. WIPO’s ultimate goal was to speed up the pace at which innovation takes place. To do this, INSPIRE identifies database features without commenting on any strengths or weaknesses of products. At the time of writing, INSPIRE listed 23 databases, both free and subscription. Content was still being added to the collection and there was scope for more sources to be included.

While it has been said that the how and why of patent application drawings are usually best left to the professionals, I do think it is important for everyone – from the solo inventor to the big firm practitioner – to have a general understanding of the basics of utility application drawings. It is nice to be able to rely on an illustration service to get everything right for you; however, as the person with the name on the patent application, you are ultimately responsible for the content and form of the drawings that are submitted. This article will touch on the fundamentals of a utility drawing. While you may not be creating the drawings, it is crucial that you have an idea of what to look for in order to be compliant with U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) guidelines.

I am going to make a bold statement: every non-provisional patent application for an invention originating in the U.S. should be filed via the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) first. Then, after another six months, following the international search, and PCT publication, those who desire U.S. patents should enter the U.S. National Stage. That’s right: every single application, no exceptions. No, I have not lost my mind. Here’s why.

In Part I, the authors reviewed the law behind subsequent patent applications. In Part II, we reviewed the different types of subsequent applications. Part III will discuss some of the implications of these. When an applicant seeks to add new claims pursuant to a continuation or divisional application, U.S. Patent Law explicitly requires that the original specification provide adequate support for the new claims by the original specification satisfying the Section 112(a) written description and enablement requirements for the new claims. 35 U.S.C. § 120. The same is also true for continuation-in-part (CIP) applications claiming overlapping subject matter but not for claims comprising “new matter” because the new matter claimed must find support in additional disclosure, i.e., in material added to the CIP application itself.

In Part I of this five-part guide to U.S. subsequent patent applications, the authors reviewed the law governing such applications. In Part II, we review the different types of subsequent applications. A continuing patent application is “an application filed subsequently to another application, while the prior application is pending, disclosing all or a substantial part of the subject-matter of the prior application and containing claims to subject-matter common to both applications, both applications being filed by the same inventor or his legal representative.” In re Febrey, 135 F.2d 751, 757 (CCPA 1943) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A continuation application is “a second application for the same invention claimed in a prior nonprovisional application and filed before the original prior application becomes abandoned or patented.”

Naming the correct inventors is critical when drafting a U.S. patent. Patents must have all inventors properly named. Deciding who is an inventor is a complicated task and great care must be taken to not add or omit people who are not inventors. It is possible that failure to properly name the inventors could result in losing your patent or its value. If inventors have been improperly added or omitted, the patent must be corrected or it could be declared invalid.

Every time a patent application is filed, we have to ask, “Who are the inventors?” It is a simple question, but the answer can be complicated. And there can be severe consequences if you get it wrong. You could lose your patent. As the Grail Knight in the Indiana Jones movie stated so well, “You must choose, but choose wisely.” As you know, patents typically have a number of claims broken down into independent and dependent claims. So, you have to look at each of the claims and determine who conceived the invention. There can be cases where different inventors conceived different parts of the invention in different claims. What’s important to understand is that you must include as named inventors anyone who conceived of an invention in any claim – even dependent claims.

Legal writing has long attracted criticism. In Gulliver’s Travels, Jonathan Swift complained of lawyers’ “peculiar cant and jargon of their own, that no other mortal can understand.” (p. 317.) More recently, Loyola Law School professor Robert Benson lamented how “[l]egalese is characterized by passive verbs, impersonality, nominalizations, long sentences, idea-stuffed sentences, difficult words, double negatives, illogical order, poor headings, and poor typeface and graphic layout.” Robert W. Benson, “The End of Legalese: The Game is Over,” 13 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 519, 531 (1984). Ouch. Patent disclosures often reveal the same warts. But if “[t]he purpose of the written description requirement is to assure that the public receives sufficient knowledge,” Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 815 F.3d 1302, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2016), why must we suffer such side effects? Drafters guilty of these crimes must’ve forgotten the public’s right to “receive meaningful disclosure in exchange for being excluded from practicing the invention.” Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 970 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

This year, Germany shot to the top of Bloomberg’s rankings for the most innovative nation worldwide, breaking South Korea’s six-year winning streak. Germany is a thriving European center for innovation where patent activity, high-tech density, and value-added manufacturing are on the rise. The country is particularly renowned for its modern car technology. It has designed award-winning high-speed roadways, digitally networked mobility, and some of the most advanced driverless vehicles. In fact, German patents for driverless cars have doubled in the last five years, and its top three patent areas in 2017 were Transport (11,000+ patents), Electrical Machinery (7,000+ patents), and Mechanical Elements (6,000+ patents). If you wish to join the trend and patent your innovation in Germany, here is a walk-through of the German patent application process.

Despite their best efforts, patent practitioners may reach an impasse during negotiations with patent examiners at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). If an applicant still desires patent protection, it can authorize the filing of a notice of appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and an associated appeal brief. Thus begins an ex parte appeals process in which a panel of at least three administrative patent judges (APJs) considers patentability of the rejected claims. Over the years, I’ve observed some patent attorneys and agents approach ex parte appeals as essentially a document assembly exercise: arguments from past Office action responses are pasted into a template and then submitted to the PTAB. In my view, such an approach represents a missed opportunity to present the strongest possible case for patentability. In a worst-case scenario, it may even prevent a client from securing the patent protection it deserves. To maximize clients’ chances of success, practitioners instead should approach appeals with the mindset of a strategist and advocate.

Greetings; John White here. It is time for you to “Think PCT” [Patent Cooperation Treaty] anew. If the last thing you remember hearing me say about the PCT was some pneumonic about how to ensure an International Filing Date (English Applicant Requests Priority Designation!), or how to calculate an old Section 102(e) date under the FOoT/DUSE  (Fee Oath Translation/ Designate United States (publish in) English) Rule for the Patent Bar Exam: good, you still remember it! You’ve put off senility a little further by keeping these things circulating in your steel-trap like brain! (Sadly, my voice is probably still rattling around in there as well, I suppose. Sorry about that…) But, let’s move on; it is now time to really understand the use and implementation of a PCT strategy in the modern era. The world is changing rapidly!

In the United States patent system, patent applications are handled by two separate, yet equally important, groups: the patent practitioners, who prepare and prosecute applications on behalf of inventors or their assignees; and the patent examiners, who examine the applications for the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for patentability under U.S. patent law. Ryan Potts worked at the USPTO for over seven years, including several as a primary examiner, before joining Lando & Anastasi. Rob Lichter worked at the USPTO as a junior patent examiner before becoming a law firm associate. The following is a list of tips and insights to understanding and interacting with U.S. patent examiners.

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 patent prosecutors. These new members to our profession quite naturally look to senior patent professionals for practical guidance. The guidance often is in the form of adages that form the Conventional Wisdom of patent prosecution. Much of this Conventional Wisdom, as it turns out, is often not very practical and some of it is not all that wise. In most cases, the Conventional Wisdom is not exactly wrong; it’s just that there may be other ways of doing things that may be more practical or effective for a particular practitioner. I’m going to talk about some pieces of Conventional Wisdom that I received that turned out to be, well, not-all-that-helpful advice. I will share what advice I would offer in its place.

Beginners in answering office actions may find it intimidating and hope to learn from similar cases. If they are able to learn from the formats and arguments adopted by experienced patent agents, they will better handle tasks in a new work environment. This article will introduce several ways to help beginning patent attorneys and agents refer to templates of similar responses in answering office actions.

Generally speaking, the first section of a patent specification will be the Background. The Manual of Patent Examination and Procedure (MPEP) recommends that the Background be broken up into two sections: (1) Field of Use Statement; and (2) Background of the Prior Art. These sections are recommended, not mandatory. Indeed, the Background itself is recommended and not mandatory. If you are going to have a Background it needs to be short, sweet, completely self-serving, must never actually describe the invention and it cannot ever use the term “prior art.” One big mistake inexperienced patent practitioners and researchers tasked with creating a first draft will make is they will go on page after page in patent applications about the history of the invention and the prior art. Indeed, there are some popular books on the market that recommend that this material be filed in patent applications. Including that type of information in an application that is filed is simply inappropriate. You do not see the best lawyers at the best law firms who represent the largest patent acquiring companies write patents like that, so why should you?