What the USPTO does

January 18, 2012 Posted by
Comments closed

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.

Changing To A Single Common Western European Patent.

February 22, 2012 Posted by

Before buying or selling a patent, these are some points to think about. The value of the patent will rely on the claims – its heart. Particularly , debates and amendments made to get allowance of the claims ,eg those made to conquer previous art denials, impact claim scope. Use of definite claim language, claims that need multiple parties for contravention, or claims containing highly specific narrow constraints, are instances of claim faults that will lower a patent’s value. As an example, if it was not inventive or a far enough jump from the first product all previous products, strategies, or bits of kit, then the patent can be announced invalid. Patent court actions can happen if the protected product or approach appears to have once been explained in a published piece of writing or has been employed by folks for over one year before the patent application was registered.

He also explains why fanciful patents aren't accepted. Indeed, I have this book in my private library and I employ it once in a while, and I would suggest that anyone that is a Pastime inventor or trend setter to pick up a copy and put it in their private library. He explains the patent drawings, cross-referencing, and alternative uses. I'm hoping you may please think about this. Patents cover many various facets of a discovery , for example how inventions work, what function they carry out, how they carry out that function, what the discovery is made from, and the way the invention is made. In addition, a patent permits the owner to talk about the discovery with others in order that they may start an enterprise that is based round the invention. Patents permit the owner to sell the discovery and to sell the IPR, and to license the discovery to some other person while maintaining the IP rights. If you invent something and don't patent it, anybody can use, make, and even sell your invention without first getting your authorization. While it is commonly feasible to keep a discovery a secret, it is commonly very unlikely to do so if technology is on show as a part of the discovery. So here’s your scheme : you want to guard your concept and you want time to contact possible backers or makers.

It’s cheap. Benefits? 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. It isn't difficult to complete.

Impact of Advances in DNA Sequencing Technology on Genetic Diagnostic Testing

February 22, 2012 Posted by

By Kevin E. Noonan

Dr. Ellen Jorgensen of Genspace, one of the witnesses at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s first hearing regarding the advisability of permitting “second opinions” for patented genetic diagnostic tests without patent infringement liability, advocated “at-home” or “do-it-yourself” DNA testing as a solution (seeUSPTO Holds First Hearing on ‘Second Opinion’ Genetic Testing“).  This proposal raises a significant number of questions, particularly with regard to the potential for harm to the public due to errors that might arise from such “at-home” genetic diagnostic testing or whether precautions in interpreting results would be taken concerning the emotional consequences of finding a genetic mutation in an individual’s BRCA genes.

image from www.nanotech-now.com

However, the saliency of any technical objections to the idea must be considered to be significantly reduced by an announcement from Oxford Nanopore Technologies at the Advances in Genome Biology and Technology Conference at Marco Island, FL last week:  a disposable gene sequencing machine the size of a standard USB thumb drive and capable of providing a complete genomic sequence for about $900.  Terming the business model for the device “pay-as-you-go” sequencing, the chief technology officer of the company, Clive G. Brown stated that the new device eliminates the need for expensive ($50,000 – $750,000) machines currently in use for gene sequencing, and touted the use of the device for bedside genetic testing, biological field work, and food safety (e.g., for identifying

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentDocs/~3/CNPEY8eMtsI/impact-of-advances-in-dna-sequencing-technology-on-genetic-diagnostic-testing.html

Biotech/Pharma Licensing News

February 22, 2012 Posted by

By Kwame Mensah

Castle Biosciences
Last month, Castle Biosciences Inc., a Friendswood, Texas-based corporation specializing in rare cancer molecular diagnostics, announced that it had acquired an exclusive worldwide license to intellectual property covering a gene expression profiling test for thymoma, which is a rare tumor derived from the epithelial cells of the thymus gland.  Castle Biosciences acquired intellectual property rights from Indiana University Research and Technology Corp., a non-profit technology transfer group associated with the university which discovered the gene profile signature that facilitates Castle Biosciences’ DecisionDx-Thymoma test.

Castle Biosciences stated that the test has displayed accurate prediction of metastatic risk in patients with thymoma, while also accurately confirming the disease stage at diagnosis.  Castle Biosciences continues to work with Indiana University to complete clinical validation and is aiming to have the test clinically available by the end of this quarter.  Patrick Loehrer, director of the Indiana University Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center in Indianapolis, stated that “[t]he ability to accurately assess metastatic risk based upon the thymoma’s molecular signature will enable personalizing therapeutic options and assist in deciding which patients should receive post-operative therapy.”

In addition to its new DecisionDx-Thymoma test, Castle Biosciences also markets tests for diagnosis of uveal melanoma, gliomas and glioblastoma.

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentDocs/~3/w5OdAB_en_8/biotechpharma-licensing-news.html

President’s Latest Budget Proposal Seeks Decrease of Data Exclusivity Period and Elimination of Pay-for-Delay Agreements

February 22, 2012 Posted by

By Donald Zuhn

Seal-presidential

Last week, President Obama unveiled his 2013 budget, and at least with respect to aspects of the budget proposal that would impact drugmakers, the President’s 2013 proposal looks a lot like his 2012 proposal.  In a section of the budget proposal entitled “Health Savings,” the Administration sets forth eighteen proposals, the final two of which concern pay-for-delay agreements and the biosimilar regulatory pathway.  With respect to pay-for-delay agreements, the budget seeks to:

Prohibit “Pay for Delay” Agreements to Increase the Availability of Generic Drugs and Biologics.  The high cost of prescription drugs places a significant burden on Americans today, causing many to skip doses, split pills, or forgo needed medications altogether.  The Administration proposes to increase the availability of generic drugs and biologics by authorizing the Federal Trade Commission to stop companies from entering into anti-competitive deals, known also as “pay for delay” agreements, intended to block consumer access to safe and effective ge­nerics.  Such deals can cost consumers billions of dollars because generic drugs are typically priced significantly less than their branded counter­parts.  These agreements reduce competition and raise the cost of care for patients both directly, through higher drug and biologic prices, and indi­rectly through higher health care premiums.  The Administration’s proposal facilitates greater ac­cess to lower-cost generics and will generate $11 billion over 10 years in savings to Federal health programs including Medicare and Medicaid.

As for biosimilars, the budget proposes to: 

Modify the Length

Article source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentDocs/~3/J2ckZNM3BxU/presidents-latest-budget-proposal-seeks-decrease-of-data-exclusivity-period-and-elimination-of-pay-f.html

What I Learned from 300 Chinese Judges

February 22, 2012 Posted by

“Las Vegas Jimi Hendrix Merchandiser Wins Round in Lawsuit,” Las Vegas Sun (Feb. 9, 2011)

“With IOS, Apple Gets the OK to Borrow a Cisco Name,” PC World (June 7, 2010)

“U.S. Brand Owners Reject ‘Loser Pays’ Option,” World Trademark Review Daily (Feb. 19, 2010) (Reg. Req’d)

“Trademark Monsters: Tackling Lanham Act Bullies,” World Trademark Review Daily (Feb. 16, 2010) (Reg. Req’d)

Some in $4.6B Christian Industry Copy Designs, Logos,” Associated Press (Dec. 16, 2009)

“What’s in a Name? Trouble if Olympics is Part of Business’ Name,” Chicago Tribune (Oct. 11, 2009)

“Bainbridge Company Raises Fist Against Amazon over Trademark,” Kitsap Sun (July 13, 2009)

“Small Design Firm Takes on Amazon over Windowshop,” TechFlash (July 10, 2009)

“USPTO on the Defensive After Error Triggers Litigation,” World Trademark Review (Feb. 18, 2009) (Reg. Req’d)

“Internet Is Star Witness In Today’s Trademark Law,” IP Law360 (Jan. 15, 2009) (Reg. Req’d) 

“Microsoft ‘Kumo’ Not Just for Search,” TechFlash (Dec. 15, 2008)

“Real Busey Discovers Fake Busey,” Seattle Weekly (May 20, 2008)

“Maple Valley Man in Trademark Battle with McDonald’s,” KING-TV (April 25, 2008) 

“McDonald’s Puckered over McSweet’s Pickled Onions,” Puget Sound Business Journal (April 18, 2008)

“Can You Use Brittney’s Face to Promote Your Bake Sale?” MainStreet.com (April 3, 2008)

“Strike Report: Coming up Short in Domain Name Game,” Los Angeles Times (Dec. 11, 2007)

“Spam, Spam, and Trademark with Spam,” The Seattle Times (Dec. 2, 2007)

“Porn Site Loses High Stakes,” InsideCounsel (Sept. 1, 2007)

“Starbucks in Trademark Battle with Indian Company,”

Article source: http://seattletrademarklawyer.com/blog/2012/2/20/what-i-learned-from-300-chinese-judges.html

Atlanta Trademark Counsels .

February 21, 2012 Posted by

Naturally, many firms place high signification on defending their brand and the way in which a trademark can be employed to do that. Trademarking is a crucial, but troublesome legal area. It is important that a brand seems to be unique and exclusive, as this is what makes it fascinating to the customer. Fashion is subject to prevalent imitation. That's why a company won't hesitate to call in their trademark barrister when imitations of their trademark, name, goods and services seem to be in failure of their trademark. This is the true definition of a trademark.

Now here is the interesting point. Therefore it is smart to be safe and not sorry, and file with the US Patent and Trademark Office. Other items that registering will do for you is supply the ‘presumption’ you are the trademark’s lawful owner and gives you official damages against somebody using your mark in bad intentions. ( The Smoothee trademark was essentially not right away cancelled, just because the owner wasn't a party in this actual court action. ) The Scarlet Spur trademark was cancelled in spite of the fact the trademark owners had followed their legal help and always included the registered trademark symbol with the right cultivar names when advertising the apples. The case hinged on the long standing proverb in deciding the authenticity of a trademark. The case illustrates that notwithstanding best religion efforts on the side of the trademark owners to keep their trademark names valid, it is not possible once the general public perspectives the trademark name as universal. A trademark must tell ‘who you are’ and not ‘what you are.’ This case has large implications for those in the nursery industry who've wrongly used trademarks to market individual plants for the last a few decades. A Fed trademark registration creates a prima facie, rebuttable hypothesis the one registering the mark is the exclusive owner regarding the listed products or services and the mark is valid. Regardless of the extra value of a Fed.

trademark registration, a registration with the US Patent and Trademark Office ( USPTO ) on the Principal Register provides 1 or 2 further advantages to the owner. A Fed. trademark registration puts others on helpful notice of a claim of possession, in order to discourage a good faith adoption defense by a successive user of the mark. This notice, including utilisation of the symbol, could be a satisfactory obstruction to avoid a 3rd party from adopting a confusingly similar mark. That is the reason why folks must be prepared for preparing their product symbol. If you've got an interest in sport products, you can begin from now to find the unique and straightforward symbol. When the product symbol is famous, many folks will obtain it and be content to wear it. You can think about alphabet emblem or image. Remember that you have to be imaginative so you will attract folks to purchase your products.

Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend Invalidity Contentions Denied Where Defendant Failed to Show Good Cause for Amendment Based on Court Declining to Construe Certain Claims

February 21, 2012 Posted by

Farpointe claimed that two events led to the changes it sought to make to the invalidity contentions. First, Farpointe asserted that the claim construction prompted it to revisit the invalidity contentions as a result of the district court’s declining to construe certain terms which broadened the claim terms beyond Farpointe’s initial understanding. The district court rejected this argument.

“Farpointe does not seem to argue that prior to the claim construction, it was unaware of the patents and HID Global products it seeks to add; rather, Farpointe argues that the construed claims “broadened the scope” of what could be considered prior art, and that the proposed additions fall into that new scope. . . . Farpointe, however, does not explain what characteristics of the proposed patents or HID global products match the supposedly “broadened” claims that the Court adopted. In other words, Farpointe does not show why its proposed addition as are prior art now and were not prior art before the claims were construed. Farpointe states that the MaxiProx Reader and Installation Manual “include aspects of the antenna arrangements as required in many of the asserted claims of the ’862 patent,” but Farpointe does not explain how that became evident only after the claim construction. Similarly, Farpointe argues that aspects of the programmable interrogatory in the ’935 patent are described in the patents Farpointe seeks to add, but again, Farpointe does not explain how that came to light only after the claim construction. Farpointe’s examples

Article source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/PatentLawyerBlogCom/~3/TYwx-IkHzgg/defendants-motion-for-leave-to.html

More Fun Hong Kong Trademarks

February 21, 2012 Posted by

“Las Vegas Jimi Hendrix Merchandiser Wins Round in Lawsuit,” Las Vegas Sun (Feb. 9, 2011)

“With IOS, Apple Gets the OK to Borrow a Cisco Name,” PC World (June 7, 2010)

“U.S. Brand Owners Reject ‘Loser Pays’ Option,” World Trademark Review Daily (Feb. 19, 2010) (Reg. Req’d)

“Trademark Monsters: Tackling Lanham Act Bullies,” World Trademark Review Daily (Feb. 16, 2010) (Reg. Req’d)

Some in $4.6B Christian Industry Copy Designs, Logos,” Associated Press (Dec. 16, 2009)

“What’s in a Name? Trouble if Olympics is Part of Business’ Name,” Chicago Tribune (Oct. 11, 2009)

“Bainbridge Company Raises Fist Against Amazon over Trademark,” Kitsap Sun (July 13, 2009)

“Small Design Firm Takes on Amazon over Windowshop,” TechFlash (July 10, 2009)

“USPTO on the Defensive After Error Triggers Litigation,” World Trademark Review (Feb. 18, 2009) (Reg. Req’d)

“Internet Is Star Witness In Today’s Trademark Law,” IP Law360 (Jan. 15, 2009) (Reg. Req’d) 

“Microsoft ‘Kumo’ Not Just for Search,” TechFlash (Dec. 15, 2008)

“Real Busey Discovers Fake Busey,” Seattle Weekly (May 20, 2008)

“Maple Valley Man in Trademark Battle with McDonald’s,” KING-TV (April 25, 2008) 

“McDonald’s Puckered over McSweet’s Pickled Onions,” Puget Sound Business Journal (April 18, 2008)

“Can You Use Brittney’s Face to Promote Your Bake Sale?” MainStreet.com (April 3, 2008)

“Strike Report: Coming up Short in Domain Name Game,” Los Angeles Times (Dec. 11, 2007)

“Spam, Spam, and Trademark with Spam,” The Seattle Times (Dec. 2, 2007)

“Porn Site Loses High Stakes,” InsideCounsel (Sept. 1, 2007)

“Starbucks in Trademark Battle with Indian Company,”

Article source: http://seattletrademarklawyer.com/blog/2012/2/19/more-fun-hong-kong-trademarks.html

Patents : Patent Counsel .

February 20, 2012 Posted by

There are individual treaties that allow you employ the filing time from your first patent application in alternative states. One such contract is elected as the ‘Paris Convention.’ If you record an application in the U.S, for example, you can later on file a patent application in an alternative bargain country and be given your U.S. The U.S. Filing date in that other country. Supports a grace stage of another year after the primary sale, offer for sale, or public notice. He is going into serious detail about organic patents for plants and genetic engineering, use patents, design patterns and idea patents.

He explains how unethical patents aren't enforceable and that no patent issued can be employed for illegal purposes. He explains the most important difference between the seventeen year patterns and twenty year patents and how all that modified the game. He also explains why fanciful patents aren't accepted. He explains the benefits of the patent, who owns the patent when it’s federally funded research, and the difficulties of the sector of invention, the boundaries of the discovery, and previous art discourse. For the complainant to achieve success in the legal proceedings, they must satisfy the judge that they were basically the first inventor, and the suspect encroached on their patent.

Patent transgression legal action may also be put to the World Trade Commission, or ITC. The accused then has to prove only one of the these 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 credible patent. There are lots of reasons a patent could be considered wrong. If you invent something and don't patent it, anybody can use, make, and even sell your invention without first getting your authorization. Even though it is frequently feasible to keep a discovery a secret, it is frequently very unlikely to do so if technology is on show as a part of the discovery.

One more thing to consider is that you can't patent particular things ,eg mathematical findings or creative work, because they don't concur with the prerequisites of patent protection. There are, naturally, exceptions to this, in you can talk to – and it recommendable to do so – barristers, registered counsels, or maybe even a patent agent, as anything you tell them will be in confidence as it is legally privileged. It's not difficult to complete. It’s cheap. Benefits? 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 creativity. Before the year is up, somebody you allot will foot the bill for the full patent, and you'll receive the bartered signing costs, residual payments, and any extra monies that you'll have bartered. Bingo! You currently have a full 12 months to do your talks and the find the correct partners to bring your product to market. Definitely ! You're going to require a drawing and a written outline of your invention.

Microsoft V. I4i And Patent Cancellation .

February 19, 2012 Posted by

Before buying or selling a patent, these are some points to think about. Use of profound claim language, claims that need multiple parties for violation, or claims containing specific narrow restrictions, are an example of claim faults that will lower a patent’s value. The value of the patent will be impacted by what occurred during prosecution before the U.

S. Patent and Trademark Office ( USPTO ), or other exam entity. Especially , discussions and amendments made to get allowance of the claims , for example those made to triumph over previous art denials, impact claim scope. In a similar fashion , the value of the patent might be impacted by prosecution events for foreign or U.S. I would like to counsel 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 legal classes and issues with process patents and software, machines and tooling, producing processes, and chemical compositions of matter. He is going into extreme detail about organic patents for plants and genetic engineering, application patents, design patterns and idea patents. He explains the most significant difference between the seventeen year patterns and twenty year patents and how all that modified the game. He explains how unethical patents aren't enforceable and that no patent issued may be employed for illegal purposes.

After a EU patent is sanctioned, the individual nationwide states don't hold tact to think up their own denials. These contain more than Western european Union states, they contain individual European states as well as a few others. It might be cost extortionate even to just file in all nations on the planet. Even the most significant firms don't accomplish patents around the planet. It is better to target the nations where you'll maintain sales or where there's a motivating activity in the technology in which you are occupied. Patent contravention legal action may also be put to the Global Trade Commission, or ITC. For the complainant to achieve success in the legal action, they should persuade the judge that they were really the first inventor, and so the suspect encroached on their patent. 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 kosher patent.

As an example, if it was not leading edge or a far enough jump from the first product all previous products, techniques, or pieces of kit, then the patent can be announced invalid. Patent court actions can happen if the protected product or approach appears to have once been explained in a published piece of writing or has been utilized by folk for over one year before the patent application was registered. Patents cover many alternative facets of a discovery ,eg how inventions work, what function they carry out, how they carry out that function, what the discovery is made from, and the way in which the invention is made. There are plenty of reasons to patent a discovery, and one of the leading reasons is that of what will occur if you don't patent your invention. Patents permit the owner to sell the discovery and to sell the intellectual property, and to license the discovery to some other person while maintaining the IP rights. If you invent something and don't patent it, any person can use, make, and even sell your invention without first 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.