Prosecution Lunch October 2010. Bits and Pieces from the Patent Side Crowing about reduction in pending cases –From 750K a year ago to about 708K now.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Enhanced First Action Interview (EFAI) Pilot Program
Advertisements

Prosecution Lunch Patent January Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program Requirements –A non-provisional meeting filing-date standards and claiming.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION OFFICE OF PATENT COUNSEL March 16, 2001.
Accelerating Patent Prosecution Thursday, October 18, 2012.
INTRODUCTION TO PATENT RIGHTS The Business of Intellectual Property
1 Hatch-Waxman Boot Camp July 19-20, 2010 Mary C. Till Legal Advisor Office of Patent Legal Administration.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office Bob Olszewski, Director TC 2900 United States Patent and Trademark Office.
1 1 1 AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association USPTO Updates Including Glossary Pilot Program Chris Fildes Fildes & Outland, P.C. IP Practice.
PROSECUTION APPEALS Presented at: Webb & Co. Rehovot, Israel Date: February 14, 2013 Presented by: Roy D. Gross Associate St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens.
Greg Gardella Patent Reexamination: Effective Strategy for Litigating Infringement Claims Best Practices for Pursuing and Defending Parallel Proceedings.
America Invents Act (AIA) Changes in Patent Law That Impact Companies May Mowzoon: Mowzoon Law Office, PLLC 1.
Enhanced First Action Interview (EFAI) Pilot Program Wendy Garber Tech Center Director, 2100 United States Patent & Trademark Office.
Peter D. Aufrichtig, Esq..  Intellectual Property clients look and sound like all other clients.
July 8, Enhanced Examination Timing Control Robert A. Clarke Deputy Director Office of Patent Legal Administration
Patent Term Adjustment (Bio/Chem. Partnership) Kery Fries, Sr. Legal Advisor Phone: (571)
35 USC § 102(g)(1) and (2) (g)(1) Inventor establishes [prior invention] and not abandoned, suppressed or concealed...” (g)(2) Invention was made in this.
Intellectual Property Patent Primer Michael Pratt Executive Director, Business Development November 1, 2011.
Applications for Intellectual Property International IP Protection IP Enforcement Protecting Software JEFFREY L. SNOW, PARTNER NATIONAL SBIR/STTR CONFERENCE.
General Information on Patents and the Patent Process presented to North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries June 24, 2008 Brian Hanlon,
Full First Action Interview (FFAI) Pilot Program Wendy Garber Tech Center Director, 2100 United States Patent & Trademark Office.
Intellectual Property
Information Disclosure Statements
Ashok K. Mannava Mannava & Kang, P.C. Expedited Examination Programs from the PTO February 12, 2012.
February 19, Recent Changes and Developments in USPTO Practice Prepared by: Office of Patent Legal Administration (OPLA) Robert J. Spar, DirectorJoni.
The New USPTO Rules and their Impact on Biomedical Patent Prosecution Mojdeh Bahar, J.D.,M.A. Technology Licensing Specialist Office of Technology Transfer.
Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) Recent Developments in PTA Practice and Strategies for Maximizing PTA Presented to NJIPLA December 9, 2009 Jack Brennan Fish.
2 23,503 hours in FY 2013, compared with 21,273 hours in FY ,651 interview hours in FY 13 have been charged through the AFCP program. Interview.
International IP Issues Federal Lab Consortium Meeting International IP Issues Dr Roisin McNally - European Patent Attorney 20 September 2006.
Intellectual Property What is intellectual property? What is intellectual property? US IP protection- US IP protection- Patent application process Patent.
Investing in research, making a difference. Patent Basics for UW Researchers Leah Haman Intellectual Property Associate WARF 1.
1 LAW DIVISION PATENT DIVISION TRADEMARK & DESIGN DIVISION ACCOUNTING & AUDITING DIVISION YUASA AND HARA LAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING.
Prosecution Group Luncheon November, Prioritized Examination—37 CFR “No fault” special status under 1.102(e) Request made with filing of nonprovisional.
Prosecution Lunch Patents January Reminder: USPTO Fee Changes- Jan. 1, 2014 Issue Fee Decrease- delay paying if you can –Issue Fee: from $1,780.
BEIJING BRUSSELS CHICAGO DALLAS FRANKFURT GENEVA HONG KONG LONDON LOS ANGELES NEW YORK SAN FRANCISCO SHANGHAI SINGAPORE SYDNEY TOKYO WASHINGTON, D.C. Patent.
1 United States Patent and Trademark Office PTA Post Wyeth USPTO OPLA - Kery A. Fries PTA Post Wyeth Wyeth v. Kappos (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2010 )
Class Seven: Intellectual Property Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights.
1 1 AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association Updates on the USPTO Chris Fildes AIPLA-JPAA Joint Meeting April 9, 2013.
Patent Prosecution Luncheon February Defective Priority Claim Means No Priority Claim Each intermediate application in the chain of priority must.
Prosecution Lunch August All Ohio Annual Institute on IP Patent, Trademark and Copyright Updates Cincinnati – Tuesday, Sept. 21 8:30am - 4:45 pm.
After Final Practice Linda M. Saltiel June 2, 2015.
1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association The Presumption of Patent Validity in the U.S. Tom Engellenner AIPLA Presentation to.
6.1 Chapter 6 Patents © 2003 by West Legal Studies in Business/A Division of Thomson Learning.
6.1 Chapter 6 Patents © 2003 by West Legal Studies in Business/A Division of Thomson Learning.
Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks Patents are a primary intellectual property right for entrepreneurs to flourish. Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks.
Patent Prosecution May PCT- RCE Zombie 371 National Stage PCT Applications –Not Allowed to file an RCE until signed inventor oath/declaration is.
New Ex Parte Appeal Rules Patent and Trademark Practice Group Meeting January 26, 2012.
QualityDefinition.PPACMeeting AdlerDraft 1 1 Improving the Quality of Patents Marc Adler PPAC meeting June 18, 2009.
Chris Fildes FILDES & OUTLAND, P.C. IP Practice in Japan Committee Pre-Meeting AIPLA Annual Meeting, October 20, 2015 USPTO PILOT PROGRAMS 1 © AIPLA 2015.
Prior Art  What is prior art?  Prior art = certain types of knowledge defined by 102(a)-(g) that may operate to defeat patentability or invalidate a.
Prosecution Group Luncheon Patent October PTO News Backlog of applications continues to decrease –623,000 now, decreasing about 5,000/ month –Expected.
Patent Reexamination: Best Practices for Pursuing and Defending Parallel Reexamination and Litigation.
Andrew B. Freistein Wenderoth, Lind & Ponack, L.L.P. Learning the ABC’s of Patent Term Adjustment 1 © AIPLA 2015.
Prosecution Group Luncheon May, Obviousness—In re Kao (FC 2011) BPAI affirms obviousness rejection: using reference formula, POSA can replace reference’s.
First Action Interview Pilot Program Legal Secretaries & Administrators Conference June 18, 2009.
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences May 15, Interference Practice Q&A James T. Moore Administrative Patent Judge
Boston New York San Francisco Washington, DC Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute Understanding Intellectual Property June 4, 2008.
Accelerated Patent Examination: Green Technology A Summary of Global Initiatives, with specific discussion of the US Speaker: Matt Prater Preparation help.
Recent Developments in Obtaining and Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights in Nanocomposites Michael P. Dilworth February 28, 2012.
Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Officewww.ipo.gov.uk UK EXAMINATION SYSTEM: RELATIVE GROUNDS EXAMINATION Mark Jefferiss.
Technology Transfer Office
Patenting innovative products
Prosecution Group Luncheon
PATENTS IT.CAN Annual Meeting
Options to Protect an Invention: the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) and Trade Secrets Hanoi October 24, 2017 Peter Willimott Senior Program Officer WIPO.
What are the types of intellectual property ?
What are the types of intellectual property?
What You Didn’t Know That You Didn’t Know About Patents
Boston Patent Law Association Annual Meeting
Jonathan D’Silva MMI Intellectual Property 900 State Street, Suite 301
Presentation transcript:

Prosecution Lunch October 2010

Bits and Pieces from the Patent Side Crowing about reduction in pending cases –From 750K a year ago to about 708K now As of Oct. 5, 168K utility patents issued in 2010 –Calendar 2009: 167,350 –Record: 173,772 in calendar 2006 –Current pace: 1/3 more utilities in 2010 than in 2009; surpass record number in a few weeks

Bits and Pieces from the Patent Side New System of “Quality Metrics” –For reviewing “overall patent quality” –Derived from 7 separate metrics, including propriety of final and in-process actions, degree to which search and FAOM comport with “best practices,” and internal/external quality surveys Extension of First Action Interview Program –Available for applications filed as of given dates, in given art groups –Possibility of facilitating early allowance –Request for FAI must be filed by April 1, 2011

Patent Term Adjustments Wyeth v. Kappos (FC 2010): undercalculated PTA New PTA challenge may be brewing re: appeals –Many appeals return to Ex’r during briefing period, never reach BPAI –Examiner maintains control over the case during that period 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1): three parts for term guarantee –For delayed PTO responses (e.g. delay over 4 mos. in appeal) –For total pendency over 3 years (not incl. BPAI review) –For delays due to appeals if patent issued after decision PTO has rejected PTA where notice and brief filed, then rejection withdrawn, if withdrawal is within 4 months of filing the brief

Business Methods in Canada Amazon.com v. Canada (Canada Fed. Ct. 2010).Canada Fed. Ct CIPO rejected one-click appn. as “business method” –Not within definition of “invention” in the Patent Act –Notably, relevant statute closely follows 35 U.S.C. 101 Federal Court of Canada reversed –Business methods patentable in appropriate cases –Mere “business scheme” or “disembodied idea” not patentable because they have no “practical embodiment” –Eligible because (1) system claims require machine as essential element and (2) method claims use “cookies, computers, the internet and the customer’s own action” with physical effect on those elements –Remanded for “expedited re-examination”

Prior-Inventor Rights, NOT Prior-User Rights Solvay v. Honeywell (Fed. Cir. 2010)Fed. Cir Honeywell had invention in US before Solvay’s invention date –Copied from Russian agency under contract –No commercial use/publication before Solvay application 102(a): several in US knew invention prior to Solvay’s invention date –Honeywell kept confidential—no “public” knowledge, no invalidation –No prior-user defense here—only for business methods 102(g)(2): invention by another was in US, not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed –But: Russians were original inventor; not an invention in the US –Honeywell not a prior inventor because it copied another’s work FC: “inventor” under 102(g)(2) means “original inventor” –originality “inherent to the notion of conception,” ergo “invention in this country” means original invention in US

World Intellectual Property Indicators, 2010 Report based on 2008, some 2009 data Trademark applications down 0.9% in 2008; Madrid registrations down 12.3% in 2009 Patent applications up 2.6% in 2008, but 8 “large patent offices” show 2.7% decrease in 2009; 4.5% decline in PCTs in 2009 Entire report available through WIPO