USPTO GOV BLOG

The USPTO grants patent and trademark protection
to inventors or businesses in order to prevent
unlawful use of their inventions by others
for personal or commercial benefits.

The application process is extremely extensive and complicated, thus the USPTO recommens that applicants retain the assistance of a USPTO registered patent lawyer or patent consultant, although USPTO registration for the attorney is not required.

It is imperative that the patent lawyer is well versed in all the different issues concerning the application process and remains updated at all times.

On this site USPTO.CA (not affiliated with the USPTO.GOV) you will find information, news and articles about patents and trademarks.

Editor.

Trend setters, and idea designers have a visually boosted brain, and they can create and conceive of virtually anything. They're creative geniuses, and we are fortunate to have them in our civilization and society. Sadly with this amazing present, they frequently lack the constant details, and incapability to work inside a structured environment of forms, law, and filing the patents they have to protect their genius. Maybe , that is the reason why I bought a book regarding how to design and make your very own patents, and one that can give you enough info to do almost all of the legwork ahead, before taking your invention concept to a patent solicitor. I want to suggest a good book to you on this subject, the book is, ‘Nolo’s Patterns for Beginners,’ by David Pressman and Richard Stim, 2001 The book covers approved classes and issues with process patents and software, machines and tooling, producing processes, and chemical compositions of matter. Administration has granted your invention its protection, under the law. Your talks will include possible licensing charges, residual payments, signing costs, bonuses, etc – not bad, eh? Once you have decided which group or company offers you the hottest deal for developing and distributing your invention, you'll ‘assign ‘ them the prerogative to complete the full patent filing – at their cost, naturally. You currently have adequate time to go forward.

This may protect them as well as your invention. This requires the invention be far more than an easy adjustment on top of an established piece, and would benefit those concerned in the purpose or trade for which it’s built. Legal action is a discussion between 2 separate people or groups concerning a disagreement of intellectual or tangible property. Patent legal action is when an inventor, company, or other non-public organisation is the founder of a patent, and that's infringed on by another entity. A patent law suit is generally a time-intensive and all-embracing process which will cost both parties a major amount of cash. It’s cheap. It is easy to complete.

Without ‘judging’ the patentability of your submitted invention, the US Patent & Trademark Office ( USPTO ) will date- and time-stamp your correctly finished application, and award you ‘Patent Outstanding ‘ standing for your invention. Bingo! You presently have a full 12 months to do your talks and the find the best partners to bring your product to market. There are several reasons to patent a discovery, and one of the leading reasons is that of what will occur if you don't patent your invention. In addition, a patent permits the owner to talk about the discovery with folks so they may start an enterprise that is based round the invention. If you invent something and don't patent it, any person can use, turn out, and even sell your invention without getting your authorization. While it is often feasible to keep a discovery a secret, it is frequently not possible to do so if technology is on view as a part of the discovery.

As explained by the district court, “[o]ne measure of the costs of avoiding the ’263 technology concerns the cost of integrating non-infringing codes into various applications. Napper’s estimate of this cost has been revised upward in light of Rubin’s deposition testimony, which postdates the march 20 submission of Napper’s initial expert report, even if the relevant Packet Video license agreements may have been disclosed earlier. Revision of this estimate doesn’t violate my April 16 order. Napper’s reference to the Steward deposition testimony is similarly permissible.”

Motorola also requested that it be permitted to supplement its own expert damages report to address the Rubin deposition testimony. The district court denied that request based on Motorola’s failure to request supplementation promptly after the deposition testimony. “Motorola’s request to supplement its own expert damages report to address Rubin’s deposition testimony is denied. Motorola made no request to supplement its expert reports in its April 15 opposition to Apple’s supplementation request, though it was aware of Rubin’s deposition testimony–which Apple had mentioned in its supplementation request–at that time.”

Accordingly, Motorola’s motion was denied.

Apple Inc. and NeXT Software Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., Case No. 1:11-cv-08540 (N.D. Ill. May 1, 2012)

The authors of www.PatentLawyerBlog.com are patent trial lawyers at Jeffer Mangels Butler Mitchell LLP. We represent inventors, patent owners and technology companies in patent licensing and litigation. Whether pursuing patent violations or defending infringement claims, we are aggressive and effective advocates for our clients. For more information contact

Article source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/PatentLawyerBlogCom/~3/IFJCEMkgvuA/apple-v-motorola-motorola-lose.html

By Kevin E. Noonan –

In a dissent from the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of a Board determination of obviousness, Judge Newman raises a jurisdictional and separation-of-powers argument in In re Baxter International, Inc. that is destined to be decided by the Supreme Court.  Specifically, what power does the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office have to determine that a patent is invalid in a re-examination concluded after the Federal Circuit determines that the patent is not invalid after challenge during patent infringement litigation on the same grounds and over the same prior art?

The case involved ex parte re-examination of U.S. Patent No. 5,247,434 under Re-examination Control No. 90/007,751.  The technology was related to hemodialysis machines used to treat patients having impaired kidney function.  The patent claimed a hemodialysis apparatus having an interface that controlled several biological parameters:

26. A hemodialysis machine comprising:
    (a) means for controlling a dialysate parameter selected from a group consisting of dialysate temperature and dialysate concentration, and means for delivering the dialysate to a dialysate compartment of a hemodialyzer; and
    (b) a user/machine interface operably coupled to said dialysate-delivery means, the user/machine interface comprising a touch screen adapted to display an indicium correspond- ing to a parameter pertinent to operation of the hemodialysis machine for performing hemodialysis and to permit the user, by touching the indicium, to cause a change in the parameter.

Dependent claims recited additional specific features.

Patent litigation

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentDocs/~3/15yCaDAQSH8/in-re-baxter-international-inc-fed-cir-2012.html

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

I just got another e-mail from my friends at MaxVal telling me about a new free patent tool that they came up with: the “Reference Annotator“. Free is nice.

I believe that the MaxVal patent  tools I’ve used in the past have saved me time. I like the IDS Creator and the USPTO widget that lets you look up patent maintenance fees with just typing in the patent registration number. Every time I use them they work magnificently.

I think the United States Patent and Trademark Office should incorporate some of these tools right into their webpage.

The new tool is the reference annotator. I think it’s a great tool to review an entire patent document that uses the same element over and over.

Because you have to make sure that you consistently call each numbered element the same thing throughout the patent and sometimes when you’re drafting a patent application the terms get a little mixed up. This tool helps you double check your work seamlessly.

MaxVal Free Patent Tools:

Reference Annotator

This reference tool allows you to search many different terms in the document and assign each term a color. Once a term is assigned a color the document can be easily reviewed at a glance without fear of missing any of the

Article source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LotempioLawBlog/~3/jbZD3Jemhr0/

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

Respected and beloved longtime Buffalo patent attorney James J. Ralabate passed away last week at the age of 84. James was part of the “greatest generation.” As a patent attorney he held many high patent attorney positions in the industry, most notably he was the director of patents for Xerox Corp.

Mr. Ralabate started writing patents in 1959 and to date had authored more than 1,000 U.S. patents.

In 1950 he graduated from Canisius College with a bachelor’s degree in chemistry, and was a chemical engineer in the chemical weapons division of the Army from 1952 to 1954.

From 1955 to 1958, while at law school at American University he was an examiner in the United States Patent and Trademark. In 1958 he became registered patent attorney and became a member of the New York Bar in 1959.

Between 1958 to 1962 Ralabate was employed as patent attorney for Hooker Chemical Corp.

Ralabate was the general patent counsel and director of patents at Xerox Corp. At the time, he was the youngest director of patents at any major corporation in the U.S.

During his 17 years at Xerox, he had technical expertise in all aspects of Xerox’s chemical and mechanical operations, and managed all domestic and foreign patents, as well as

Article source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LotempioLawBlog/~3/2F_7LYXvbtM/

There are individual treaties that let you employ the filing time from your primary patent application in alternative nations. One such accord is appointed as the ‘Paris Convention.’ If you record an application in the U.S, as an example, you can later on file a patent application in an alternative contract country and be given your U.S. Filing date in that other country. But be conscious of the fact that any other country could have unique filing time limits. This needs the invention be far more than an easy modification on top of an existing piece, and would benefit those concerned in the purpose or trade for which it’s built.

Patent legal action is when an inventor, company, or other personal organisation owns of a patent, and that's infringed on by another entity. Legal proceedings is a discussion between 2 separate people or groups concerning a disagreement of intellectual or tangible property. A patent law suit is generally a time-intensive and all-encompassing process that can cost both parties a major amount. Now what? In addition, you want to get your foot in the door — as it were — with the patent office, so that nobody can ‘beat you to the punch’. But there is a problem… As a first-time inventor, you could have put all your expendable funds into developing your concept.

You presently have adequate time to progress. You can not afford the thousands of bucks to hire a dear patent lawyer or patent agent. You'll use this time to agree terms with potential 3rd parties, who will bid on manufacturing your invention. After you've decided which group or company offers you the hottest deal for developing and distributing your invention, you'll ‘assign ‘ them the inherent right to complete the full patent filing – at their cost, naturally. If you have invented something you want to patent, a vital consideration to don't forget is that you shouldn't tell any person about your invention before you apply to patent it, as this may cause your request to become invalid. This can protect them as well as your invention.

There are, naturally, exceptions to this, in you can talk to – and it desirable to do so – barristers, registered counsels, or possibly a patent agent, as anything you tell them will be in confidence as it is legally privileged. Inventions must ‘relate to how something works, what it does, what it is made from, or how it is formed ‘, it has to be new, it's got to be a resourceful step in the area it covers, and it's got to be capable of being either made or employed in a sector. Before trying for a patent, it assists in getting good, private advice from a pro , for example a barrister. If you would like to learn more – before speaking to a pro – about, as an example, the prerequisites for patent protection it's better to go to the governing body internet site for its Intellectual Property office, where all rules on patents can be discovered.

The Panel began its analysis of the Vonage argument by focusing on Section 1407: “Under our governing statute, Section 1407, we transfer ‘civil actions involving one or more common questions of fact’ that ‘are pending in different district’ to a single district ‘for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.’ 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). Even though Section 1407 transfer contemplates transfer ‘for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings,’ we do not order pretrial ‘consolidation’ of the cases before us. That is done, if at all, in a district court, typically the MDL transferee court. We refrain from dictating the structure of an MDL’s pretrial proceedings (such as whether the litigation will proceed in a coordinated manner as opposed to consolidation of involved actions to the sound discretion of the transferee judge.”

Vonage asserted that the Panel could not centralize the litigation because there was only an assertion of commonality based on an assertion that the defendants infringed the same patent. This argument was based on the following section of the America Invents Act: “Allegations insufficient for joinder. For purposes of this subsection, accused infringers may not be joined in one action as defendants or counterclaims defendants, or have their actions consolidated for trial, based solely on allegations that they each have infringed the patent or patents in suit.”

The Panel disagreed. The panel found that “[t]he America Invents Act does not alter our authority to order pretrial centralization of this litigation. First, transfer under

Article source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/PatentLawyerBlogCom/~3/GV1dj1c2rys/multi-district-panel-rules-tha.html

By Donald Zuhn –

A survey on consumer perceptions regarding food technology indicates that many U.S. consumers have favorable opinions concerning the benefits offered by plant and animal biotechnology.  The survey, which was commissioned by the International Food Information Council (IFIC), a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization established in 1985 to effectively communicate science-based information about food safety and nutrition, was conducted by polling 750 U.S. adults between March 7-19, 2012 as to their perceptions on various food technology issues.

The survey found that 74% of respondents had read or heard at least “a little” about the concept of food biotechnology.  With respect to plant biotechnology in general, respondents who had somewhat or very favorable opinions concerning plant biotechnology (38%) outnumbered those who had somewhat or very unfavorable opinions (20%).  The percent of respondents having somewhat or favorable opinions was up from 32% in 2010.  Almost half (49%) of respondents had favorable opinions concerning the use of biotechnology by farmers to grow more crops in order to help meet food demand.  A majority of respondents noted that they were somewhat or very likely to purchase foods produced through biotechnology in order to provide more healthful fats (71%), avoid saturated fat (68%), or make foods taste better or fresher (69%).  Given the choice between increased pesticide use or biotechnology, 77% of respondents said they would be likely to purchase foods that had been biotechnologically engineered for their

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentDocs/~3/bE4b8OGC8FA/survey-finds-that-many-us-consumers-are-favorable-towards-plant-and-animal-biotechnology.html

Before buying or selling a patent, these are some things to think about. The value of the patent will be impacted by what occurred during prosecution before the US Patent and Trademark Office ( USPTO ), or other exam entity. The value of the patent will rely on the claims – its heart. Particularly , debates and amendments made to get allowance of the claims , for example those made to triumph over previous art denials, impact claim scope. Patent violation legal proceedings may also be put to the World Trade Commission, or ITC. Likewise , the value of the patent could be impacted by prosecution events for foreign or U.S. For the litigant to achieve success in the legal action, they must persuade the judge that they were essentially the first inventor, and so the suspect encroached on their patent.

There are lots of reasons a patent could be considered wrong. The accused then has to prove only one of the these so as to win the suit : the patent hadn't been violated, it's not one that may be applied, or that it hasn't ever been a good patent. You currently have adequate time to go forward. Your talks will include possible licensing charges, commission payments, signing costs, bonuses, etc – not bad, eh? When you've decided which group or company offers you the top deal for developing and distributing your invention, you'll ‘assign ‘ them the privilege to complete the full patent filing – at their cost, naturally. This may protect them as well as your invention. Before the year is up, somebody you allot will foot the bill for the full patent, and you may receive the bartered signing costs, commission payments, and any extra monies that you will have bartered. Are you able to write a temporary patent application and successfully submit it yourself? You're going to require a drawing and a written outline of your invention. Then you'll have to complete the right forms with the correct info on the correct lines. Mail the package to the USPTO. There are, naturally, exceptions to this, in you can talk to – and it recommendable to do so – barristers, registered barristers, or perhaps a patent agent, as anything you tell them will be in confidence as it is legally privileged.

If you have invented something you would like to patent, a very important consideration to keep in mind is that you shouldn't tell anybody about your invention before you apply to patent it, as this may cause your request to become invalid. One other thing to consider is that you can't patent specific things ,eg mathematical findings or creative work, because they don't comply with the prerequisites of patent protection. Inventions must ‘relate to how something works, what it does, what it is made from, or how it is formed ‘, it has got to be new, it's got to be a creative step in the area it covers, and it has got to be capable of being either made or utilized in a business.

By Donald Zuhn –

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published a notice published in today’s Federal Register (77 Fed. Reg. 28541) seeking comments regarding an international effort to revise the standard for Sequence Listing submissions.  The new standard — proposed WIPO ST.26 — would require that Sequence Listings be submitted in extensible mark-up language (XML) format, which the Office indicated would more closely align the requirements of the Sequence Listing standard with those of public sequence database providers.

Currently, Sequence Listings must be submitted in accordance with World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Standard ST.25 (see portion below), which became effective in 1998.  U.S. Patent Rules concerning application disclosures of certain nucleotide and amino acid sequences (i.e., 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.821 – 1.825) are consistent with WIPO ST.25.

In October 2010, the Committee on WIPO Standards (CWS) established a Task Force, led by the European Patent Organization (EPO), to propose a revised standard for the filing of Sequence Listings in XML format (see Example below).  The XML standard developed by the Task Force, tentatively designated WIPO ST.26, has three components:  (i) the body of the standard, (ii) a first annex setting forth the controlled vocabularies for use with the sequence part of the standard, and (iii) a second annex setting forth the Document Type Definition

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentDocs/~3/kFW4yC6CDy8/uspto-seeks-comments-on-new-sequence-listing-standard.html