Adjusting Patent Term Due to Delays
Generally, the basic term of a patent is either 20 years from the filing date of the patent application or 17 years from the issue date of the patent whichever is greater. However, there are many variations from the basic term. For example, the patent term for a continuation patent is calculated not from its [...]
Print This Post
- Posted in: Uncategorized
- Continue Reading →
Misconceptions of Provisional Patent Applications
After an inventor conceives of an invention, an application seeking patent protection may be filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The first or initial patent application may either be a provisional or non provisional patent application.
The provisional patent application is described as a lower cost option compared to the non-provisional patent application. [...]
Print This Post
- Posted in: Featured, Uncategorized
- Continue Reading →
Disclose Information Related to Your Invention
After a patent application is filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, each individual involved with the patent application has a duty to disclose information that is material to the patentability of the invention. Failure to disclose all material information coupled with an intent to mislead the Patent Office may jeopardize the validity [...]
Print This Post
- Posted in: Uncategorized
- Continue Reading →
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 [...]
Print This Post
- Posted in: Uncategorized
- 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 in [...]
Print This Post
- Posted in: Uncategorized
- 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 [...]
Print This Post
- Posted in: Uncategorized
- Continue Reading →




