Rescission of Proposed Rules to Continuation and Claims Practice
The rules regarding continuation practice and claim practice which were proposed and would have been implemented in 2007 have been enjoined ever since. On September 21, 2009, the Patent Office with GlaxoSmithKline and Dr. Tafas filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal and vacate the judgment of the district court since the Patent Office [...]
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Print This Post
- Posted in: Uncategorized
- Continue Reading →
Reverse Payments
The typical payment in a patent litigation dispute flows from the alleged infringer to the patentee. The payment may represent damages incurred by the patentee to make the patentee whole and/or a licensing royalty fee if the patentee permits the alleged infringer to continue selling the patented product or method. The following case illustrates a [...]
(2 votes, average: 3.00 out of 5) Loading ... Print This Post
- Posted in: Antitrust
- Continue Reading →
Safe Harbor Provision for Divisional Patent Applications
The patent statute (35 USC § 121) indicates that divisional patent applications cannot be receive a double patenting rejection based on claims of a parent application. This is commonly known as the safe harbor provision of Section 121. The following case illustrates whether the safe harbor applies to a patent application that is a divisional [...]
(1 votes, average: 3.00 out of 5) Loading ... Print This Post
- Posted in: Uncategorized
- Continue Reading →
Updated Look Is Obvious
During examination of a patent application, the examiner and patent applicant may disagree on various issues such as claim interpretation, patentable subject matter, written description, novelty, obviousness, etc. After the examiner has rejected the patent application twice, the patent applicant may appeal the matter to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“BPAI”). The following [...]
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ... Print This Post
- Posted in: Obviousness
- Continue Reading →
Product By Process Claims
One of the most important sections of a patent specification is the claims. The reason is that the claims define the metes and bounds of patent protection afforded under the patent. For example, the scope of patent protection afforded under a product claim that recites elements a, b and c extends only to a product [...]
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ... Print This Post
- Posted in: claim construction
- Continue Reading →
Specific Intent Required for Active Inducement of Patent Infringement
Liability for patent infringement may arise directly or indirectly. For direct patent infringement liability, a defendant makes, uses, sells, offers for sale or imports a product that infringes a patent. For indirect patent infringement liability, the accused actor is assisting someone else in directly infringing a patent either by inducing them to infringe or by [...]
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ... Print This Post
- Posted in: Uncategorized
- Continue Reading →
Reducing Scope of Doctrine of Equivalents Via Ensnarement Defense
As previously discussed in “Avoiding Patent Infringement,” the claims define the metes and bounds of patent protection afforded under a patent. The claims can be infringed either literally which means that the alleged infringer practiced the claimed invention without any deviation. If the alleged infringer practiced a variation of the claimed invention, then liability for [...]
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5) Loading ... Print This Post
- Posted in: Doctrine of Equivalents
- Continue Reading →
