Information Filled Under 'uspto' Category
Linux Today – USPTO Asks for Comments on New Interim Guidance on … Saturday, July 31st, 2010
So the USPTO is asking for public comment on what they came up with for their understanding. They want to hear from the public by September 27, and they provide some specific questions and a list of factors examiners are to consider …
Read more from the original source:
Linux Today – USPTO Asks for Comments on New Interim Guidance on …
Kappos decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that business methods are not per se unpatentable, the USPTO has published a set of Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility of Process Claims for patent …
Read more:
USPTO issues guidance for patent subject matter eligibility after …
By Sydney Kokjohn — Last week, the US Patent and Trademark Office celebrated the one-year anniversary of its e-Office Action (e-OA) program. So far, the program has electronically notified patent applicants on more than 850000 Office …
See more here:
Patent Docs: USPTO Celebrates One-Year Anniversary of e-Office Action
A bit late for the rule’s “triennial” cycle, the Librarian of Congress has released the sec 1201(a)(1)(C) exceptions from the prohibitions on circumventing copyright access controls. For the next three years, people will not be ” circumventing ” if they “jailbreak” or unlock their smartphones, remix short portions of motion pictures on DVD (if they are college and university professors or media students, documentary filmmakers , or non-commercial video-makers ), research the security of videogames , get balky obsolete dongled programs to work, or make an ebook read-aloud. (I wrote about the hearings more than a year ago, when the movie studios demoed camcording a movie — that didn’t work to stop the exemption.) Since I’ve criticized the DMCA’s copyright expansion , I was particularly interested in the inter-agency debate over EFF’s proposed jailbreak exemption
Go here to see the original:
Jailbreaking Copyright’s Scope
The USPTO has published Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos. This Interim Guidance went.
Read the rest here:
The USPTO's Interim Guidance For Determining Subject Matter …
The United States Patent and Trademark Office ( USPTO ) has posted supplemental interim guidance for the patent examining corps to use when determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of the US Supreme Court’s …
Continue reading here:
Intellectual Property Watch » Blog Archive » USPTO Seeks Comments …
A new proposal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office ( USPTO ) for a “Three Track” system for patent examination may violate US obligations under the World Trade Organization Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property …
Follow this link:
Intellectual Property Watch » Blog Archive » Is USPTO 3-Track Plan …
Toronto-based tech company i4i Inc., which last year won a $290 million patent verdict against Microsoft over the use of custom XML technology in Word, announced that the US Patent and Trademark Office has issued a Reexamination …
Original post:
i4i v Microsoft: USPTO issued a Reexamination Certificate
On 12th July, US President Barack Obama wrote to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, requesting that she spearhead efforts to ensure additional funding for the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
Read more from the original source:
ARTICLE: Barack Obama’s powerful IP lesson for Europe
In the newest Patently-O Patent Law Journal publication, Robert Matthews discusses the law controlling false-marking suits when multiple plaintiffs sue for the same act of false marking. Matthews extrapolates the case-law to make two primary points: (1) a false-marking defendant cannot be subjected to multiple penalties for the same act of patent false marking; and (2) based on the first-to-file tradition, federal comity, and standing principles, the second-filed suit should be dismissed. Cite as Robert A.
Visit link:
Patently-O Patent L.J.: Overlapping Plaintiffs in False Marking Litigation
REMINDER: @ USPTO is an unofficial feed of public info from the US Patent and Trademark Office run by @jmattbuchanan @nipper @mandymsinclairJuly 30, 2010 – 1:26 PM; Published Applications for 07-29-2010 -> 6134 (compared to 5545 in the …
Read this article:
Ten Ways to Improve the USPTO Website – Number 2 | The Invent Blog®
by Paul Craane of Marshall Gerstein & Borun In the wake of Bilski, the United States Patent and Trademark Office has provided unclear, and potentially incorrect, guidance to the Examining Corps regarding the application of 35 U.S.C. 101. The guidance instructs examiners to reject claims if the claims fail to meet the machine-or-transformation (MoT) test, absent some “clear indication that the method is not directed to an abstract idea.” This application of Bilski effectively ignores the guidance provided by the opinion to the effect that the MoT test is not the sole test for patent-eligible processes under Section 101
See the original post here:
Guest Post: USPTO Must Amend Examiner Guidelines On Bilski
Below is a guest blog from David Kappos, Director of the USPTO, in which he explains why the office is embracing the Patent Prosecution Highway and why he believes it offers significant benefits to patent applicants. Fast Track Examination of Applications on the Patent Prosecution Highway Patent backlogs are a problem for every patent office in the world and reducing the duplication of work among patent offices is key to reducing patent pendency. Work sharing arrangements enable applications filed in multiple jurisdictions to be fast-tracked based on another office’s work product–such as allowances or search reports–while streamlining patent processing among…
Original post:
BLOG: IAM Exclusive – David Kappos writes on the Patent Prosecution Highway
Guest Post by Robert Merges and Pamela Samuelson, UC Berkeley School of Law; Ted Sichelman, University of San Diego School of Law In our previous post , we discussed some of the major findings from the Berkeley Patent Survey —the most comprehensive survey to date in the United States, probably worldwide, on how patents are used by and affect entrepreneurs, startups, and early-stage high technology companies. (For those interested in more information, a detailed discussion of the survey results is available here ; a focused analysis on the drivers of startup patenting, here ; and some background on the genesis of the survey, here .) As we noted at the end of our last post, when asked about the role patents play in directly driving the innovation process, our respondents reported relatively weak effects
Read more here:
Patenting by Entrepreneurs: The Berkeley Patent Survey (Part III of III)
Guest Post by Robert Merges and Pamela Samuelson, UC Berkeley School of Law; Ted Sichelman, University of San Diego School of Law In our previous post , we discussed three major findings from the Berkeley Patent Survey —the most comprehensive survey to date in the United States, probably worldwide, on how patents are used by and affect entrepreneurs, startups, and early-stage high technology companies. As we noted in that post, the survey collected responses from over 1,300 companies less than ten years old (hereinafter, “startups”) in the biotechnology, medical device, software, and hardware/IT sectors. In this post, we discuss three additional major findings.
Read the original here:
Patenting by Entrepreneurs: The Berkeley Patent Survey (Part II of III)
Guest Post by Robert Merges and Pamela Samuelson, UC Berkeley School of Law; Ted Sichelman, University of San Diego School of Law Why do entrepreneurs and startup companies file for patents? Why not? How often do startups acquire patents from others
Read the original:
Patenting by Entrepreneurs: The Berkeley Patent Survey (Part I of III)
By Dennis Crouch In Avid ID , the Federal Circuit denied Avid’s motion for en banc rehearing on the issue of whether inequitable conduct exists when the non-inventor, non-attorney CEO of a company applying for a patent failed to submit information to the USPTO about pre-filing but non-invalidating trade-show exhibit of a prior version of the patented product.
Read this article:
Avid ID v. Crystal Import: En Banc Request Denied On Issue of Inequitable Conduct by Non-Inventor CEO
cross-posted from Freedom to Tinker , where I’m delighted to be joining the crew on a more frequent basis The Supreme Court’s long-awaited decision in Bilski v. Kappos brought closure to this particular patent prosecution, but not much clarity to the questions surrounding business method patents. The Court upheld the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that the claimed “procedure for instructing buyers and sellers how to protect against the risk of price fluctuations in a discrete section of the economy” was unpatentable, but threw out the “machine-or-transformation” test the lower court had used
View post:
Bilski and the Value of Experimentation
Spicy IP is pleased to bring you a special guest post on a recent decision of the European Court of Justice on a DNA patent held by global seed company Monsanto , which has raised some flags in the biotechnology industry, particularly on how it could narrow the protection currently available to companies in Europe. This very crisp yet succinct post is authored by Dr Rca Godbole , who has done her doctoral work in the field of Plant Molecular Biology, has worked as a scientist. Now based in Mumbai, she advises law firms and corporate houses in matters related to patents and patent based business strategy
View original post here:
Guest Post: Purpose-bound patent protection and lessons for India by Dr Rca Godbole
So, just a fortnight after theBilski case was decided by the Supreme Court comes the news that NTP – of BlackBerry fame – is to sue a group of six leading IT companies, including Microsoft, Google, Apple and Motorola. It accuses them of infringing patents relating to wireless email transmissions. As all readers of this blog know, NTP successfully sued RIM, the maker of the Blackberry, winning a settlement of $612.5 million in 2006 after protracted wrangling both in and out of court.
Original post:
BLOG: Why has NTP gone on the attack now?
The above chart shows average application pendency for issued utility patents grouped by issue year. The chart presents three separate series that differ according to the filing-date used in the pendency calculation. The lowest data-series uses a traditional calculation that calculates pendency based on the actual US non-provisional filing date of the application in question without regard to any priority claims
The rest is here:
Updated Statistics: Patent Application Pendency
By Jason Rantanen In Leviton , Chief Judge Michel issued his last words as a judge on the subject of inequitable conduct, while Judge Prost provided some hints as to her views on the questions pending before the court in Therasense v. Becton Dickinson. * * * * * Leviton Manufacturing Company, Inc.
Go here to see the original:
Leviton Manufacturing v. Universal Security Instruments
After the Bilski decision was rendered by the Supreme Court, the USPTO issued a press release , stating that the PTO “will be issuing guidance further interpreting the decision as soon as possible” and that the PTO will be issuing interim guidance for the examining corps in the meantime. The interim guidelines state that the machine-or-transformation test should continue to be used as a “tool”, but if there is no “clear indication” that the invention is something other than an abstract idea, the examiners should reject the application.
Statutory Guidelines for Inequitable Conduct Friday, July 2nd, 2010In TheraSense , the en banc Federal Circuit is looking to rewrite the rules of inequitable conduct. By both its name and historic precedent, inequitable conduct appears to stem from non-statutory doctrines of equity. However, as with other equitable doctrines (such as injunctive relief), inequitable conduct could be somewhat tamed by the language of the Patent Act.
Go here to see the original:
Statutory Guidelines for Inequitable Conduct
The machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for patent eligibility under §101. ( Supreme Court 2009, 08-964 ) As stated by Justice Kennedy in the opinion of the Court, the question in this case turned on whether a patent can be issued for a claimed invention designed for the business world. The Bilski patent application claimed a procedure for instructing buyers and sellers how to protect against the risk of price fluctuations in a discrete section of the economy. 35 U.S.C.
Read more from the original source:
Bilski v. Kappos.
Of the patents issued thus far in 2010, more than 25% carry the baggage of a file history with at least one request for continued examination (RCE) and that rate is expected to rise.
View post:
Why do Applicants File So Many Requests for Continued Examination?
Guest Post by Shubha Ghosh , Vilas Research Professor & Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin Law School A year and a half ago, the Federal Circuit threw down a gauntlet in its Bilski opinion, extensively citing Supreme Court precedent to come up with the “machine or transformation test” to determine when a process constitutes patentable subject matter. Now the Supreme Court has rejected the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that “machine or transformation” is the only test to use and provided an additional basis for why Bilski’s patent for a method of hedging risk is not patentable
Read the rest here:
Guest Post on Bilski: Throwing Back the Gauntlet