tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12840348906967745182024-03-05T10:44:49.994-05:00SayfiePatentsBlogSayfiePatentsBlog is a publication of Robert J. Sayfie. Subject matter involoves patent and trademark law. Robert can be reached by calling 1-888-468-0444.Robert J. Sayfie, Registered Patent Attorneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06027560117674215733noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1284034890696774518.post-36872142056979765032017-02-25T10:31:00.002-05:002017-02-25T10:33:01.883-05:00Can the Government be Sued for Patent Infringement?<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1998/98-531" target="_blank"><i style="color: #252525;">Florida Prepaid Po</i><span style="color: black;"><i>stsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank</i>, <span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: none; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">527 U.S. 627</span> (1999)</span></a> held; No, a State or State entity cannot be sued for patent infringement. In a 5-to-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court began by noting that there was no doubt that the <span style="color: #222222;"><a href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/102/s758" target="_blank">Patent and Plant Variety Protection Remedy Clarification Act</a> passed in 1992, </span>intended to abrogate states' immunity from patent infringement. However the court concluded that neither the Commerce Clause nor the Patent Clause give Congress the power to curtail state sovereign immunity from patent infringement claims. The Court reasoned that although the Fourteenth Amendment authorizes Congress to pass "appropriate legislation" to protect parties from being deprived of property without due process, this in itself does not permit the abrogation of state sovereign immunity. The court also concluded that because the Act's language was overly broad in its scope, the Court dismissed College's suit and declared unconstitutional corresponding segments of the Act.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;"> <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1498" target="_blank">However, </a><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1498" target="_blank">28 USC 1498(a)</a> is recited below:</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span class="num" style="box-sizing: border-box;" value="a">(a) </span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;">Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States is used or manufactured by or for the United States without license of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same, the owner’s remedy shall be by action against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims for the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture. Reasonable and entire compensation shall include the owner’s reasonable costs, including reasonable fees for expert witnesses and attorneys, in pursuing the action if the owner is an independent inventor, a nonprofit organization, or an entity that had no more than 500 employees at any time during the 5-year period preceding the use or manufacture of the patented invention by or for the United States. Nothwithstanding </span><a class="footnoteRef" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1498#fn002070" id="fn002070-ref" name="fn002070-ref" style="background: 0px 0px rgb(255, 255, 255); box-sizing: border-box; color: #06357a; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: top;" title="[1]">[1]</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333;"> the preceding sentences, unless the action has been pending for more than 10 years from the time of filing to the time that the owner applies for such costs and fees, reasonable and entire compensation shall not include such costs and fees if the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.</span></span><br />
<div class="content" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; display: inline;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">For the purposes of this section, the use or manufacture of an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States by a contractor, a subcontractor, or any person, firm, or corporation for the Government and with the authorization or consent of the Government, shall be construed as use or manufacture for the United States.</span></div>
<span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 10px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The court shall not award compensation under this section if the claim is based on the use or manufacture by or for the United States of any article owned, leased, used by, or in the possession of the United States prior to <span class="date" date="1918-07-01" style="box-sizing: border-box;">July 1, 1918</span>.</span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A Government employee shall have the right to bring suit against the Government under this section except where he was in a position to order, influence, or induce use of the invention by the Government. This section shall not confer a right of action on any patentee or any assignee of such patentee with respect to any invention discovered or invented by a person while in the employment or service of the United States, where the invention was related to the official functions of the employee, in cases in which such functions included research and development, or in the making of which Government time, materials or facilities were used.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So, under <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1498" target="_blank">28 U.S.C. 1498(a)</a> the answer is yes. However this may not apply to government contractors.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Visit www,sayfie.com</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Copyright Robert J. Sayfie, P.C., 2017</span></div>
</span></div>
Robert J. Sayfie, Registered Patent Attorneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06027560117674215733noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1284034890696774518.post-88412120139251405012016-10-08T16:20:00.000-04:002016-10-15T13:15:00.886-04:00NEW ORAL ARGUMENT PROCEDURE AFTER FINAL REJECTION<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span></span>The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“the Office”)
has a new procedure for applicants who receive a final rejection. The procedure
is called Post-Prosecution Pilot ("the program").<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Applicants who
receive final rejections to nonprovisional utility applications filed may file
the Request to participate in the program. Design, plant, reissue, and
reexamination proceedings are prohibited from participating in the program.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To begin, the
applicant completes (1) a Request Form ("Certification and Request for
Consideration under the Post-Prosecution Pilot Program") filed
electronically within two months of the mailing date of the final rejection;
and (2) a statement that the applicant is willing to participate in a
conference; (3) a response with a maximum of five pages of arguments, exclusive
of any amendments; and (5) optionally, a proposed non-broadening amendment to
one or more claim(s). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The requirements to participate are:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
1. fortunately,
there is no fee to participate in the program; <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
2. only one request
per application is allowed; and<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
3. the examiner may
request an additional response(s). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
An applicant is not
allowed to file any of the following: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
1. a notice of
appeal;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
2. request for
Continued Examination (RCE);<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
3. an express
abandonment;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
4. a request for
the declaration of interference or;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
5. a petition
requesting the institution of a derivation proceeding.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Office will contact
the applicant to schedule the conference. There will usually be a conference
within ten calendar days. The applicant will make an oral presentation to the
panel of examiners no longer than 20 minutes and the conference will have the
following rules:<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
a) claim
amendments, affidavits or other evidence included as part of the presentation
materials;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
b) applicant can
only present appealable, not petitionable, matters;<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
c) applicant may
present arguments directed to the patentability of the amended claim(s) as
proposed.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Then the panel will
discuss the proposed findings and prepare a written decision.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The applicant will
be informed of the panel’s decision. The decision will be one of the following:
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
1. Continue
prosecution; a notice of decision indicating reopen prosecution will state that
the rejection(s) is/are withdrawn and a new Office action will be mailed.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
2. Confirm the
final rejection: <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
a) If proposed
amendment(s) were included with the Request, then the status of such
amendment(s);<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
b) the time
period for taking further action in response to the final rejection expires on
(1) the mailing date of the notice of decision; or (2) the date set forth in
the final rejection, whichever is later. To avoid abandonment, the applicant
must file a notice of appeal or RCE within the statutory period for response to
the final rejection. Extensions of time may be obtained.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
c) the Office
will not grant a petition seeking reconsideration of a panel decision upholding
a final rejection.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
3. Notice of
Allowance.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Visit www.sayfie.com; www.sayfiepatents.com; or
www.westmichiganpatentlaw.com<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
Robert J. Sayfie, Registered Patent Attorneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06027560117674215733noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1284034890696774518.post-43111981803740899112016-07-09T13:57:00.000-04:002016-07-09T13:57:21.119-04:00Challenging Issued Patents by Post Grant Review Proceedings<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: 'trebuchet ms', trebuchet, verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 22px; font-stretch: normal; font-weight: normal; margin: 0.75em 0px 0px; position: relative;">
Challenging Issued Patents by Post Grant Review Proceedings</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-3788595627460369019" itemprop="description articleBody" style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: 'trebuchet ms', trebuchet, verdana, sans-serif; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 546px;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 26.4px; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<div class="MsoNormal">
Granted Patents may be challenged within the USPTO any time before nine (9) months after issuance, without filing a lawsuit in Federal District Court. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) regulations allow for a procedure to challenge patents. This is called a Post Grant Review Proceeding (PRG) for patent applications filed on or after 19 March 2013 or Inter Partes Review proceeding for those applications filed before 19 March 2013.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In either case, the third party challenger may attempt to invalidate one or more claims as unpatentable on any ground relating to invalidity (i.e., novelty, obviousness, written description, enablement, indefiniteness, but not best mode).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The government filing fee varies, and ranges from $9000.00 to $18,000.00.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Attorney fees can range from $50,000.00 to $280.000.00, which is less than the average attorney’s fees for lawsuits filed in Federal District Court.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A party dissatisfied with the final written decision in a post grant review may appeal to the Federal Circuit.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Of course, if you are beyond the nine (9) month post issuance time period, the patent can be challenged by filing a Declaratory Judgement Action in Federal District Court.<span style="font-size: 13px;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Call Robert J. Sayfie at 1-888-468-0444</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
visit www.sayfiepatents.com</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
visit www.sayfie.com</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Copyright 2016, all rights reserved.</div>
</div>
</div>
Robert J. Sayfie, Registered Patent Attorneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06027560117674215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1284034890696774518.post-51589906586369593412014-12-14T18:07:00.001-05:002016-07-09T13:54:59.124-04:00Challenging Issued Patents by Post Grant Review Proceedings<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 22px; font-stretch: normal; font-weight: normal; margin: 0.75em 0px 0px; position: relative;">
Challenging Issued Patents by Post Grant Review Proceedings</h3>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-3788595627460369019" itemprop="description articleBody" style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: 'trebuchet ms', trebuchet, verdana, sans-serif; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 546px;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 26.4px; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<div class="MsoNormal">
Granted Patents may be challenged within the USPTO any time
before nine (9) months after issuance, without filing a lawsuit in Federal
District Court. The United States Patent
and Trademark Office (USPTO) regulations allow for a procedure to challenge
patents. This is called a Post Grant Review Proceeding (PRG) for patent
applications filed on or after 19 March 2013 or Inter Partes Review proceeding
for those applications filed before 19 March 2013.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In either case, the third party challenger may attempt to invalidate
one or more claims as unpatentable on any ground relating to invalidity (i.e.,
novelty, obviousness, written description, enablement, indefiniteness, but not
best mode).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The
government filing fee varies, and ranges from $9000.00 to $18,000.00.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Attorney
fees can range from $50,000.00 to $280.000.00, which is less than the average attorney’s
fees for lawsuits filed in Federal District Court.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A party
dissatisfied with the final written decision in a post grant review may appeal
to the Federal Circuit.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Of course,
if you are beyond the nine (9) month post issuance time period, the patent can be
challenged by filing a Declaratory Judgement Action in Federal District Court.<span style="font-size: 13px;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Call Robert J. Sayfie at 1-888-468-0444</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
visit www.sayfiepatents.com</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
visit www.sayfie.com</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Copyright 2016, all rights reserved.</div>
</div>
</div>
Robert J. Sayfie, Registered Patent Attorneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06027560117674215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1284034890696774518.post-61695092195969007452014-09-22T19:29:00.000-04:002014-09-22T19:29:11.886-04:00Domain Name Disputes and Cybersquatting<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 26px; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
According to the <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125" style="color: #015782; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act</a> Cybersquatting is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else. The person registering, trafficking, or using the domain name in bad faith is called a cybersquatter. Typically, the cybersquatter then offers to sell the domain to the person or company who owns a trademark.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 26px; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
In a recent case, the jewelry company <a href="http://www.swarovski.com/" style="color: #015782; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Swarovski</a> filed a complaint against a Mr. Derk Hond. The case is, <a href="http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2013-0005" style="color: #015782; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">LLSwarovskiAktiengesellschaft v. Derk Hond Case No. D2013-0005</a>. The respondent, sometimes called a defendant, registered the domain name <a href="http://cheap-swarovski.net/" style="color: #015782; text-decoration: none;">cheap-swarovski.net</a>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 26px; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<b><u>FACTS<o:p></o:p></u></b></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 26px; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The Complaint was filed with the <a href="http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/index.html" style="color: #015782; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”)</a> on January 3, 2013. Swarovski uses the SWAROVSKI trademarks in connection with crystal jewelry stones and crystalline semi-finished goods for the fashion, jewelry, home accessories, collectibles, and lighting industries<o:p></o:p></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 26px; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<b><u>LAW<o:p></o:p></u></b></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 26px; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 35.45pt;">
In order to succeed in its claim, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:<o:p></o:p></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 26px; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 35.45pt; text-indent: 35.45pt;">
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and<o:p></o:p></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 26px; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 35.45pt; text-indent: 35.8pt;">
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and<o:p></o:p></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 26px; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 26px; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<b><u>CONCLUSION<o:p></o:p></u></b></div>
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18.2000007629395px;" />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 26px; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
The Panel orders that the disputed domain name <cheap-swarovski .net="">be transferred to the Complainant.</cheap-swarovski></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 26px; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<cheap-swarovski .net="">Visit www.sayfiepatents.com</cheap-swarovski></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 26px; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<cheap-swarovski .net="">Visit www.sayfie.com</cheap-swarovski></div>
Robert J. Sayfie, Registered Patent Attorneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06027560117674215733noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1284034890696774518.post-50771304865223707642014-08-08T22:54:00.002-04:002014-08-08T22:54:21.647-04:00The Unites States most un-appreciated asset. - Innovation and Creativity Where would the United States be today without the innovations of:<br />
<br />
1. Thomas Edison<br />
Thomas Edison patented over 1000 inventions include the phonograph, the incandescent light bulb, and the motion picture;<br />
<br />
2. Samuel F. B. Morse<br />
His inventions include the telegraph and morse code;<br />
<br />
3. Alexander Graham Bell<br />
His inventions include the telephone in 1876;<br />
<br />
4. Henry Ford<br />
The automotive industry drove the American economy since it inception;<br />
<br />
5. George Eastman<br />
He invented the Kodak camera;<br />
<br />
6. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs<br />
Computers.<br />
<br />
Many important inventions were invented or best produced in the United States. The reason is that the U.S. constitution created the structure of our government. The limits of the government provide free enterprise to grow by the incentive and fun involved in creating and inventing, and reaping the benefits of one's creation, generally through the U.S. patent system and international patent laws.<br />
<br />
Where would the U.S. be had the above inventions been invented or primarily developed in another country?<br />
<br />
Visit <a href="http://www.sayfiepatents.com/">http://www.sayfiepatents.com/</a>Robert J. Sayfie, Registered Patent Attorneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06027560117674215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1284034890696774518.post-881269742780198912014-01-01T18:18:00.002-05:002014-01-01T18:18:49.359-05:00How can the Patent Examination Process be Accelerated?<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">A.
Petition to Make Special (final disposition goal within 12
months)</span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> I. <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/petition_age_quickstart.pdf" target="_blank">the applicant's age</a> or health (no fee);</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /> II. the
invention will materially (no fee);<br /> a) enhance
the quality of the environment;<br /> b) contribute
to the development or conservation
of energy resources; or<br /> c) contribute
to countering terrorism.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /> III. <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/forms/sb0028_fill.pdf" target="_blank"> accelerated examination program</a>.<br /> Under
the accelerated examination program the applicant can pay a fee of
$30 to $140 depending on the type of applicant, and meet other
requirements, below:</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /> a) the
application must contain three (3) or fewer independent claims and
twenty (20) or few total claims. The application may not
contain any multiple dependent claims;<br /> b) the
applicant waives the right to separately argue the patentability of
any dependent claim during any appeal;<br /> c) the
claims must be directed to a single invention;<br /> d) the
applicant agrees to have (if requested by examiner) an interview to
discuss the prior art and any potential rejections, and a telephonic
interview to make an election without traverse;<br /> e) the
applicant must provide a pre-examination search statement that
includes:<br /> i) an
information disclosure statement;<br /> ii) an
identification and waiver of all the limitations of the
claims;<br /> iii) a
detailed explanation of how each of the claims are patentable over
the cited references;<br /> iv) a
statement of utility as defined in the independent
claims;<br /> v) an
identification of any cited reference that may be
disqualified;<br /> vi) a
showing of where each limitation of the claims finds support having a
proper written description under 35 U.S.C. 112.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br />B.
<a href="http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/Track_One.jsp" target="_blank">Track One Prioritized Examination</a> (final disposition goal of 12
months)<br /> This
is a procedure for expedited examination upon payment of a fee and
filing a petition, which may be granted or denied. The fee is
$4000.00 for a large entity, $2000.00 for a small entity, and
$1000.00 for a micro-entity.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /> The
fees are higher than the petition to make special fees, but there are
less filing requirements and less potential waiving of claim
limitations.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br />C.
An applicant can also attempt to accelerate the examination process
in international applications using the <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp" target="_blank">Patent Prosecution Highway(PPH)</a>, which will not be discussed in this issue.</span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Visit <a href="http://www.sayfie.com/" target="_blank">www.sayfie.com </a><br /><br />Copyright
2014 Robert J. Sayfie</span></span></div>
Robert J. Sayfie, Registered Patent Attorneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06027560117674215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1284034890696774518.post-17863875536397213482013-10-27T14:27:00.004-04:002013-10-27T14:27:18.070-04:00The Doctrine of Patent Exhaustion<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
In a case, <i><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf" target="_blank">Bowman v. Monsanto</a></i>, U.S. Supreme Court opinion 11-796, respondent Monsanto
invented and patented Roundup Ready soybean <span style="line-height: 200%;">seeds, which contain
a genetic alteration that allows them to survive exposure to the
herbicide glyphosate. It sells the seeds subject to a licensing
agreement that permits farmers to plant the purchased seed in one,
and only one, growing season. The license permits growers to consume
or sell the resulting crops, but may not save any of the harvested
soybeans for replanting.</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Under the patent
exhaustion doctrine, “the initial authorized sale of a patented
article terminates all patent rights to that item,” <i>Quanta
Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc.</i>, 553 U. S. 617, 625, and
confers on the purchaser, or any subsequent owner, “the right to
use [or] sell” the thing as he sees fit, <i>United States v. Univis
Lens Co</i>., 316 U. S. 241, 249–250. However, the doctrine
restricts the patentee’s rights only as to the “particular
article” sold, id., at 251; it leaves untouched the patentee’s
ability to prevent a buyer from making new copies of the patented
item</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="line-height: 200%;">\ In
May 2013, the Supreme Court held: Patent exhaustion does not permit
a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting
without the patent holder’s </span><span style="line-height: 200%;">permission.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
In
its opinion, the Court stated:</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in;">
Monsanto sells, and allows other companies to sell, Roundup Ready
soybean seeds to growers who assent to a special licensing agreement.
</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 0.5in;">
That agreement permits a grower to plant the purchased seeds in one
(and only one) season. He can then consume the resulting crop or sell
it as a commodity, usually to a grain elevator or agricultural
processor. But under the agreement, the farmer may not save any of
the harvested soybeans for replanting, nor may he supply them to
anyone else for that purpose.
</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="margin-bottom: 0in; margin-left: 0.5in; margin-right: 1in;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
In
this case, the farmer used the seeds for eight consecutive crops.
The Supreme Court agreed with Monsanto that he only had permission
for the first crop. The farmer raised the defense of patent
exhaustion by claiming that Monsanto could not control his use of the
beans as they were subject to the prior authorized sale to place he
purchased the seeds from. The District Court rejected the defense
and awarded damages to Monsanto of $84,456. The Federal Court agreed
with this decision and later the Supreme Court affirmed. The Patent
Act grants a patentee the “right to exclude others from making,
using, offering for sale, or selling the invention.” <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154" target="_blank">35 U.S.C.§154(a)(1)</a>. The Supreme Court decided that the farmer was
replicating Monsanto’s seed by making more and using them thereby
infringing on the patent owned by Monsanto.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
visit <a href="http://www.sayfiepatents.com/" target="_blank">www.sayfiepatents.com </a> </div>
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
Robert J. Sayfie, Registered Patent Attorneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06027560117674215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1284034890696774518.post-20305818335356337522013-08-16T00:16:00.001-04:002013-08-16T00:16:47.493-04:00IP Litigation AttorneyRobert J. Sayfie has represented clients successfully against, what are perceived to be, "large and successful" corporations. Read the below links to see what independent parties have reported about the success of Robert J. Sayfie against opponents such as Intel, Inc., etc..<br />
<br />
Robert J. Sayfie, (<a href="http://www.sayfie.com/">www.sayfie.com</a>) represents a patentee against an accused infringer in Nevada:<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="color: blue; font-family: Calibri;"><a href="http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/patent-lawsuits/nevada-district-court/52074/ropes-courses-inc-v-whitewater-west-industries-ltd-dba-prime-play/summary/">http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/patent-lawsuits/nevada-district-court/52074/ropes-courses-inc-v-whitewater-west-industries-ltd-dba-prime-play/summary/</a></span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Robert J. Sayfie, (<a href="http://www.sayfie.com/">www.sayfie.com</a>) sues Intel Corporation: </span></o:p><o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.boliven.com/legal_proceeding/1:05-cv-00404-ESC?q"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Calibri;">http://www.boliven.com/legal_proceeding/1:05-cv-00404-ESC?q</span></a><span style="font-family: Calibri;">=<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><br /></span></div>
Robert J. Sayfie, Registered Patent Attorneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06027560117674215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1284034890696774518.post-70619122080683153422013-08-16T00:02:00.001-04:002016-10-09T15:26:06.822-04:00
Robert J. Sayfie has represented clients successfully against, what are perceived to be, "large and successful" corporations. Read the below links to see what independent parties have reported about the success of Robert J. Sayfie against opponents such as Intel, Inc., etc..<br />
<br />
Robert J. Sayfie, (<a href="http://www.sayfie.com/">www.sayfie.com</a>) represents a patentee against an accused infringer in Nevada:<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/patent-lawsuits/nevada-district-court/52074/ropes-courses-inc-v-whitewater-west-industries-ltd-dba-prime-play/summary/"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Calibri;">http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/patent-lawsuits/nevada-district-court/52074/ropes-courses-inc-v-whitewater-west-industries-ltd-dba-prime-play/summary/</span></a><o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Robert J. Sayfie, (<a href="http://www.sayfie.com/">www.sayfie.com</a>) sues Intel Corporation: </span></o:p><o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.boliven.com/legal_proceeding/1:05-cv-00404-ESC?q"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Calibri;">http://www.boliven.com/legal_proceeding/1:05-cv-00404-ESC?q</span></a><span style="font-family: Calibri;">=<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Robert J. Sayfie, Registered Patent Attorneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06027560117674215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1284034890696774518.post-51350187664964298242013-08-15T23:57:00.001-04:002016-10-09T15:26:06.787-04:00
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/patent-lawsuits/nevada-district-court/52074/ropes-courses-inc-v-whitewater-west-industries-ltd-dba-prime-play/summary/"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Calibri;">http://www.rfcexpress.com/lawsuits/patent-lawsuits/nevada-district-court/52074/ropes-courses-inc-v-whitewater-west-industries-ltd-dba-prime-play/summary/</span></a><o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<a href="http://www.boliven.com/legal_proceeding/1:05-cv-00404-ESC?q"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Calibri;">http://www.boliven.com/legal_proceeding/1:05-cv-00404-ESC?q</span></a><span style="font-family: Calibri;">=<o:p></o:p></span></div>
Robert J. Sayfie, Registered Patent Attorneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06027560117674215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1284034890696774518.post-62964232154645013522013-08-15T21:41:00.002-04:002013-08-15T21:41:57.300-04:00NEW PILOT PROGRAM - AFTER FINAL CONSIDERATION<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">On May 19, 2013, the USPTO launched the After
Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 (AFCP 2.0).
Using information obtained from the After Final Consideration Pilot
(AFCP), which began on March 25, 2012 and ended May 18, 2013, <span lang="EN">the USPTO continues their on-going
efforts toward compact prosecution. The
USPTO also continues to increase collaboration efforts between examiners and
stakeholders. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span lang="EN">One of the goals of the policy of “compact” prosecution
is to provide applicants with prompt and complete examination of their
applications. </span>AFCP gives extra
time for examiners to search and/or consider responses after final
rejection. If a response does not place
the application in condition for allowance, the idea is the applicant will
benefit from the extra time to schedule and conduct interviews to discuss
results of searches and/or considerations.
Like AFCP, AFCP 2.0 also revised procedure for obtaining consideration
and focuses the pilot on review of proposed claim amendments. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">AFCP 2.0 is scheduled to run
through September 30, 2013, i.e., any request to consider a response after
final rejection under AFCP 2.0 must be filed on or before September 30, 2013. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A response under 37 CFR <span lang="EN">§1.116 is required to become eligible for
consideration under AFCP 2.0. This
includes a </span><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/forms/sb0434.pdf">request for
consideration under the pilot (Form PTO/SB/434)</a><span lang="EN"> and an amendment to at least one (1)
independent claim that does not expand the scope of the independent claim in
any way. </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">You can find the Notice published
in the Federal Register at <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/cgi-bin/exitconf/internet_exitconf.pl?target=www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-05-17/pdf/2013-11870.pdf">78
Fed. Reg. 29117</a><span lang="EN">. Examiners will use their judgment to
determine if the response can be fully considered under AFCP 2.0. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If you received a final rejection under 37
CFR 1.116 and you believe further searching and/or consideration by the
examiner will lead to allow</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">ance of your application then you may want to make a
request for consideration under AFCP 2.0. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">For information on how to request consideration under AFCP 2.0, please
contact Robert J. Sayfie by visiting <a href="http://www.sayfie.com/">www.sayfie.com</a> or calling toll free at 888-468-0444.</span></span><o:p></o:p></div>
Robert J. Sayfie, Registered Patent Attorneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06027560117674215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1284034890696774518.post-77004321134365939052013-03-05T20:31:00.000-05:002013-03-05T20:31:03.477-05:00Domain Name Disputes and Cybersquatting
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>According
to the <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125" target="_blank">Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act</a> Cybersquatting is
registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad faith intent to
profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The person registering, trafficking, or using
the domain name in bad faith is called a cybersquatter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Typically, the cybersquatter then offers to
sell the domain to the person or company who owns a trademark.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In
a recent case, the jewelry company <a href="http://www.swarovski.com/" target="_blank">Swarovski</a> filed a complaint against a Mr. Derk
Hond.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The case is, <a href="http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2013-0005" target="_blank">LLSwarovskiAktiengesellschaft v. Derk Hond Case No. D2013-0005</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The respondent, sometimes called a defendant,
registered the domain name <a href="http://cheap-swarovski.net/">cheap-swarovski.net</a>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>FACTS<o:p></o:p></u></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The
Complaint was filed with the <a href="http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/index.html" target="_blank">WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”)</a>
on January 3, 2013.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Swarovski uses the
SWAROVSKI trademarks in connection with crystal jewelry stones and crystalline
semi-finished goods for the fashion, jewelry, home accessories, collectibles,
and lighting industries<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>LAW<o:p></o:p></u></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 35.45pt;">
In order to
succeed in its claim, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements
enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: <o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 35.45pt; text-indent: 35.45pt;">
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a
trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt 35.45pt; text-indent: 35.8pt;">
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to
the disputed domain name; and<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>(iii) The disputed domain name has
been registered and is being used in bad faith.<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>CONCLUSION<o:p></o:p></u></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The
Panel orders that the disputed domain name <cheap-swarovski .net=""> be
transferred to the Complainant.<o:p></o:p></cheap-swarovski></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Visit <a href="http://www.sayfiepatents.com/"><span style="color: blue;">www.sayfiepatents.com</span></a> <o:p></o:p></div>
Robert J. Sayfie, Registered Patent Attorneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06027560117674215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1284034890696774518.post-58469904258471560952013-01-02T20:30:00.000-05:002013-01-02T20:30:14.524-05:00WHAT IS A PATENT TERM ADJUSTMENT?<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The patentability of inventions
is defined under Title 35 of the U.S. Code.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>During the 1990’s Congress enacted the </span><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;"><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/doc/uruguay/SUMMARY.html" target="_blank">Uruguay Round Agreement Act</a></span><span style="font-family: Arial;"> and </span><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/aipa/index.jsp" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA)</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial;">.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">In 1994, the Uruguay Round
Agreement Act resulted in a patent term adjustment from 17 years to 20 years
from the date a patent application is filed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>It also established Patent Term Adjustment (PTA).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The PTA was significantly amended with the
enactment of the AIPA in 1999 and provided for a Request for Continued
Examination (RCE).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These significant law
changes led to litigation pertaining to the plain language of Title 35.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia has found in a recent case that the United States
Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) interpretation and application of the
“RCE carve-out” provision of the PTA statue is contrary to law.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See <em><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Exelixis, Inc. v. Kappos</span></em></i>,
No. 1:12cv96 (E. D. Va. Nov. 1, 2012).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">There is good chance that the
USPTO will appeal the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Exelisis </i>decision,
however, this holding prompts consideration for patentees owning patents issued
within the past 180 days or applicants considering whether to file an RCE.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">An unresolved question concerning
the AIPA’s PTA provision is as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 1in 0pt 0.5in; text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Whether 35 § 154(b)(1)(B) requires
that an applicant’s PTA be reduced by the time attributable to an RCE, where,
as here (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Exelixis)</i>, the RCE is filed
after the expiration of AIPA’s guaranteed three year period.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The plain language of Section 154
fails to address and does not require that an applicant’s PTA be reduced by the
time required to process an RCE that is filed after the expiration of the three
year period.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Per <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Exelixis</i>, it is recommended that patent owners and applicants
consider these tips: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">(1)
For any patents issued within the past 180 days, patent owners should evaluate
those patents to determine if the underlying application involved an RCE filed
after the three-year time period in order to determine whether they should seek
a PTA; and<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">(2)
Patent applicants should, if possible, wait to file an RCE until three years
after the application filing date. An RCE filed before the three-year time
period will preclude the applicant from obtaining additional PTA.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">For
further answers to patent law questions and your PTA , please contact <a href="http://www.sayfiepatents.com/" target="_blank">The Patent Law Office of Robert J.Sayfie.</a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"></span> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Visit <a href="http://www.sayfiepatents.com/">www.sayfiepatents.com</a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"></span> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">Or call 1-888-468-0444</span></div>
Robert J. Sayfie, Registered Patent Attorneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06027560117674215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1284034890696774518.post-22883331993603433372012-07-14T17:47:00.000-04:002012-07-14T17:47:04.778-04:00In Re Mouttet - a June 2012 case discussing obviousness <span style="font-family: Arial;">After a non-provisional patent
application is filed with the <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/" target="_blank">United States Patent and Trademark Office(USPTO)</a>, an examiner at the USPTO conducts a search, and in over 80% of the
filed applications, sends an office action rejecting the application.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The most typical rejection is due
to “obviousness” under <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_103.htm" target="_blank">35 U.S.C. 103</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Such an office action usually requires the applicant filing a response
and amendment to overcome this type of rejection.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"> Under 35
U.S.C. 103(a), if a claimed invention, as a whole, would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the field of the <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">invention, the claims are
rejected. Whether an invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art is a legal determination based on underlying findings of fact. <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1350.ZO.html" target="_blank"><em>KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,</em> 550 U.S. 398, 427 (2007)</a>; <i>In re
Gartside, </i>203 F.3d 1305, 1316, 319 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing <i>Graham v.
John Deere Co.</i>, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966)).</span> <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></o:p><span style="font-family: Arial;">The scope and content of the prior
art, as well as whether the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention,
are determinations of fact. <i>See Para-Ordnance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers
Int’l, Inc.</i>, 73 F.3d 1085, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Furthermore, where “a
patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the
mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the
combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” <i>KSR, </i>550 U.S.
at 416. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></o:p><span style="font-family: Arial;">Furthermore, a patent application
may be rejected if it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the
field of the invention to take one invention and combine the elements of other
patented inventions to yield predictable results.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"> An inventor
can rebut an obviousness rejection by showing that the prior art “teaches away”
from the claimed invention. <i>DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek,
Inc.</i>, 567 F.3d 1314, 1326-27 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Based on facts, prior art
“may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the
reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the
reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was
taken by the applicant.” <i>In re Gurley</i>, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir.
1994). However, the “mere disclosure of alternative designs does not teach
away.” <i>In re Fulton, </i>391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></o:p><span style="font-family: Arial;">The Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently decided <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/11-1451.pdf" target="_blank"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">In re Mouttet</i>, </a><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">2011-1451,
2012 WL 2384056 (Fed. Cir. June 26, 2012). The decision affirmed a rejection by
the Board of Patent and Interferences (“Board”) for all 20 claims in inventor
Mouttet’s utility patent application No. <a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=kGShAAAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=11/395,232&source=bl&ots=nfRwHAapNN&sig=q9b_sE-EdWeFwa26FycVZGB3vYw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RegBULmFCNDsqQGIgZGzDA&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA" target="_blank">11/395,232</a>, “Crossbar Arithmetic
Processor.” <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id.</i> at 2. </span>The application
“discloses a computing device for processes such as addition, subtraction,
multiplication, and division using nanoscale materials in a crossbar array.” <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id. </i>The Board upheld the original PTO
Examiner’s rejection of the application under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable
over five prior art patents. Basically, one patent contained all but three
components of the<span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"> claims provided in Mouttet’s
application. Further combining the elements of the other prior art patents
yielded the same results as Mouttet’s claimed invention—rendering it obvious. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id. </i>at 5-6. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></o:p></span><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">The Board found that an ordinarily skilled artisan—in
this case an electrical engineer—would have easily been able to substitute in
the elements from one prior art patent with another to predict the claims
included in Mouttet’s application. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id.</i>
at 10. “[T]he Board noted that there is no requirement that the examiner show
how to physically incorporate [such substitutions] because obviousness focuses
on what the combined teachings would have suggested. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id.</i> at 11. Mouttet’s arguments on appeal were that (1) combing the
elements of the prior art patents would have destroyed the principal of
operation of the prior art; and (2) the prior art teaches away from the
presently claimed invention. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id.</i> at
13. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Arial;"> T</span></o:p></span><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">he main prior art patent that rendered Mouttet’s claimed
invention obvious utilized optical paths rather than the electrical paths
included in Mouttet’s claims. Mouttet argued that substituting optical paths
for electrical paths would have destroyed the principal operation of the prior
art invention. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id.</i> at 14. The Board
disagreed, finding “that the principle of operation of [the] computing device
is its high level ability to receive inputs into a programmable crossbar array
and processing the output to obtain an arithmetic result.” <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id.</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The principal of
operation can be accomplished via optical or electrical paths, and an
ordinarily skilled electrical engineer would understand this. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"> As for Mouttet’s argument that the prior art “teaches
away” from the claimed invention, the board was not persuaded with this
argument.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Whether prior art teaches away
from a claimed invention is a question of fact. </span><span class="cosearchterm"><i>In</i></span><em><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";">
</span></em><span class="cosearchterm"><i>re</i></span><em><span style="font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"> Napier,</span></em> 55 F.3d 610, 613
(Fed.Cir.1995).<span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"> Here, the prior art specifically
discussed the differences in optical and electrical paths, noting that an
optical path is the preferential embodiment. Discussing an inferior or
non-preferential method does not “teach away” because “the mere disclosure of
an alternative design does not teach away.” <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Id.</i>
at 17. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">See <span style="mso-bidi-font-style: italic;">In re Fulton, </span></i>391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"> If an application does get rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, the
applicant may present arguments based on facts, and references should be
included when making an argument that prior art teaches away from the claimed
invention, or that the principal element of the invention would have been
destroyed. </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;">Visit <a href="http://www.sayfiepatents.com/">www.sayfiepatents.com</a> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>Robert J. Sayfie, Registered Patent Attorneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06027560117674215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1284034890696774518.post-82907802448140538062012-04-08T13:18:00.001-04:002012-04-08T13:22:27.962-04:00Therasense’s Effect on the Inequitable Conduct Doctrine<div align="CENTER" style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: black;"><i><a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/08-1511.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Therasense’s</span></a> </i></span><span style="color: black;">Effect on the Inequitable Conduct Doctrine </span> </div><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> The Doctrine of Inequitable Conduct is a defense available in patent infringement actions suggesting that an applicant has an ethical duty to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The defense requires the defendant to show that the applicant “intentionally withheld material information from or misled the examiner.” Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009). In recent years, this doctrine has undergone a substantial transformation. </div><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (<a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2002-title37-vol1/pdf/CFR-2002-title37-vol1-sec1-765.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">37 C.F.R. 1.765</span></a>) requires each applicant to exhibit<span style="color: black;"> “a</span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></span></span><span style="color: black;">duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in this section.” As a result of this obligation, applicants have tended to provide too much information to the USPTO in an effort to avoid allegations of fraud, misrepresentations and concealment of information. If an applicant does not provide enough information, he/she/it can become a prime target for a patent infringement lawsuit. This is where the inequitable conduct defense comes in. If Party A files a patent infringement action against Party B, Party B can counterclaim, alleging that Party A breached its duty of candor to the court by not disclosing enough information about his/her/its invention. Although effective once proven, this defense is difficult to prove in the first place. A successful defendant must show that the concealed or misrepresented information is 1) material, and 2) the applicant intended to deceive the USPTO. Intent is a difficult element to meet as it must be proven by clear and convincing evidence and “cannot always be inferred from a pattern of conduct that may be described as grossly negligent.” </span><i><a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_258005160"><span style="color: blue;">Kingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. V. Hollister, Inc.</span></a></i><span style="color: black;"><a href="http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/866/1398/205252/" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">,</span></a> 863 F.2d 867, 872-73 (Fed. Cir. 1988). </span> </div><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: black;"> Last year in </span><i><a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/08-1511.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co</span></a></i><span style="color: black;">, the Federal Circuit did away with the “reasonable examiner” approach and established a “but-for” standard for determining materiality. 649 F.3d 1276, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The Court held that “the materiality required to establish inequitable conduct is but-for materiality.” </span><span style="color: black;"><i>Id. </i></span><span style="color: black;">So in essence, “[w]hen an applicant fails to disclose prior art to the PTO, that prior art is but-for material if the PTO would not have allowed a claim had it been aware of the undisclosed prior art.” </span><span style="color: black;"><i>Id.</i></span><span style="color: black;"> In a case of nondisclosure, the court, applying the preponderance of the evidence standard, “must determine whether the PTO would have allowed the claim if it had been aware of the undisclosed reference.” </span><span style="color: black;"><i>Id. </i></span><span style="color: black;">at 1291-92. On the issue of intent, the court stated that intent cannot be inferred “solely from materiality.” </span><span style="color: black;"><i>Id. </i></span><span style="color: black;">at 1290. Instead, it “must weigh the evidence of intent to deceive independent of its analysis of materiality.” </span><span style="color: black;"><i>Id. </i></span><span style="color: black;">Although a court may rely on circumstantial evidence in making an intent determination, because of the high standard the plaintiff must meet (clear and convincing evidence standard), the specific intent to deceive must be “the single most reasonable inference able to be drawn from the evidence.” </span><i><a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1578561.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">StarScientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co</span></a><span style="color: blue;">.</span></i><span style="color: black;">, 537 F.3d 1357, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2008).</span></div><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: black;"> The </span><span style="color: black;"><i>Therasense</i></span> case is significant because it transformed the Inequitable Conduct doctrine in two respects. First, contrary to <i><a href="http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/731/878/30154/" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Driscoll v. Cebalo</span></a></i>, 731 F.2d 878 (Fed. Cir. 1984), it held that “a finding that the misrepresentation or omission amounts to gross negligence or negligence under a ‘should have known’ standard does not satisfy this intent requirement.” Second, contrary to <i><a href="http://openjurist.org/725/f2d/1350/american-hoist-derrick-company-v-sowa-and-sons-inc" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Am. Hoist &Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons, Inc</span></a>.</i>, 725 F.2d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1984), a court “should not use a ‘sliding scale’ where a weak showing of intent may be found sufficient based on a strong showing of materiality, and vice versa.” <i>Therasense</i>, 649 F.3d at 1290. <span style="color: black;">Following the case, the UPTO proposed to amend 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.56 and 1.555 to require submission of </span><span style="color: black;"><i>material</i></span><span style="color: black;"> information, as defined in </span><span style="color: black;"><i>Therasense</i></span><span style="color: black;">. As of March 2012, the proposal has not gone into effect. </span> </div><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span style="color: black;">Commentators believe that this case, based on the high standards a plaintiff has to meet, coupled with the America Invents Act, which was promulgated on September 16, 2011 by the U.S. Congress, will result in a reduction of the number of patents found to be unenforceable. It has been less than a year since </span><span style="color: black;"><i>Therasense </i></span><span style="color: black;">was decided and the America Invents Act was enacted, so the effects have yet to be seen. Most provisions of the America Invents Act will become effective in the fall of 2012. What is clear at this time, however, is that district courts are now equipped with the knowledge pertaining to the application of the equitable conduct doctrine. The decision removed the ambiguity surrounding the standards to be applied in determining the two prongs of this defense and created clearer standards. </span></div><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"> <span style="color: black;">In its first post-</span><span style="color: black;"><i>Therasense </i></span><span style="color: black;">case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit applied the standards set forth in </span><span style="color: black;"><i>Therasense</i></span> in<span style="color: black;"> the </span><span style="color: black;"><i><a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1409-1416.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">Powellv. Home Depot, Inc</span></a>.</i></span><span style="color: black;"> in November of 2011. The district court hearing that case determined that the plaintiff had intentionally omitted a fact from the USPTO. On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that under the higher standard of </span><span style="color: black;"><i>Therasense</i></span><span style="color: black;">, there was no inequitable conduct because the plaintiff’s conduct failed the “but-for” materiality standard. This case tends to show that the new standard allows for less judicial discretion, and instead will likely result in more consistent rulings on the issue of inequitable conduct. </span></div><br />
Visit <a href="http://www.sayfiepatents.com/"><span style="color: blue;">www.sayfiepatents.com</span></a> <br />
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><span style="color: red;"> </span></div><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div>Robert J. Sayfie, Registered Patent Attorneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06027560117674215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1284034890696774518.post-5298792673686088652011-12-25T12:09:00.001-05:002011-12-25T12:12:01.758-05:00Considerations when Evaluating the Validity of a U.S. PatentConsiderations when Evaluating the Validity of a U.S. Patent:<br />
<br />
1. Is the patent expired? In the United States, <a href="http://www.sayfiepatents.com/whatisapatent.html" target="_blank">utility patents</a> are enforceable for a period of twenty (20) years from the filing date, if the maintenance fees have been paid. <a href="http://www.sayfiepatents.com/whatisapatent.html" target="_blank">Design patents</a> are enforceable for 14 years after the grant of the patent. Utility patents require three (3) <a href="http://www.sayfiepatents.com/whatisapatent.html" target="_blank">maintenance fees</a> to be paid to prevent the patent from being abandoned, at periods of 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years after issuance. If the fees are not paid, then the patent is abandoned, and no longer enforceable.<br />
<br />
2. Have the maintenance fees been paid? An inquiry with the proper division of the <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/" target="_blank">United States Patent and Trademark Office</a> will allow you to determine if the maintenance fees have been paid. If not, then the patent is abandoned, and not enforceable.<br />
<br />
3. Is the patent invalid under <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_102.htm" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">35 United States Code, section 102</span></a>? For example, this code prevents a patent from being valid if:<br />
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent; <br />
<br />
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States;<br />
<br />
(c) he has abandoned the <span style="color: black;">invention, or</span><br />
<br />
(d) the invention was first patented or caused to be patented, or was the subject of an inventor's certificate, by the applicant or his legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application for patent or inventor's certificate filed more than twelve months before the filing of the application in the United States.;<br />
<br />
(e) the invention was described in - (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b)<span style="color: black;">, by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351 (a) </span><span style="color: black;">shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under </span><span style="color: black;">Article 21(2) </span><span style="color: black;">of such treaty in the English language...</span><br />
<br />
The above statutes has a few other provisions that may cause a patent to be invalid.<br />
<br />
These considerations are only a starting point and a proper evaluation many times requires a thorough review of the applicant's filings, and office actions from U.S. Patent and Trademark Office .<br />
Visit <a href="http://www.sayfiepatents.com/">www.sayfiepatents.com</a>Robert J. Sayfie, Registered Patent Attorneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06027560117674215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1284034890696774518.post-47070061755573771492011-10-26T21:17:00.001-04:002011-10-26T21:31:59.108-04:00How does the new America Invents Act change the patent laws?<span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">The <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/index.jsp">America Invents Act</a> was signed into law on 16 September 2011, however many of the key provisions do not become effective until 16 March 2013.</span></span> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">For example, for patent applications filed on or after 16 March 2013, he law will switch U.S. right to the patent from the present "</span><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">first-to-invent</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial;">" system to a "</span><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">first-to-file</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial;">" system.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">The law also redefines the definition of prior art. Acts and prior art that prohibit a patentee from obtaining a patent will include public use, sales, publications, and other disclosures available to the public as of the filing date, other than publications by the inventor within one year of filing whether or not a third party also files a patent application. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Applicants that do not publish their inventions prior to filing will receive no grace period. The proceedings at the U.S. Patent Office for resolving priority contests among near-simultaneous inventors who both file applications for the same invention will be repealed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These are currently called “interference proceedings.”</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Visit <a href="http://www.sayfiepatents.com/">www.sayfiepatents.com</a> </span></span></div>Robert J. Sayfie, Registered Patent Attorneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06027560117674215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1284034890696774518.post-3754338387171732712011-08-20T22:23:00.001-04:002011-08-20T22:24:26.066-04:00Patentability of Computer Programs - www.sayfiepatents.com<span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">What kind of computer programs are patentable?<o:p></o:p></span></span> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">A case decided 16 August 2011 provides some guidance. In the case of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/09-1358.pdf">CYBERSOURCECORPORATOIN v RETAIL DECISIONS, INC.</a></i>, the court stated,<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><o:p><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></o:p></span><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">“to impart patent-eligibility to an otherwise unpatentable process under the theory that the process is linked to a machine, the use of the machine “must impose meaningful limits on the claim’s scope.” 545 F.3d at 961. In other words, the machine “must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed.” <i>SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n</i>, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010).”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 11.5pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>This means that <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">one</span> cannot patent a process simply by claiming that the process is performed by a computer.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">visit <a href="http://www.sayfiepatents.com/">www.sayfiepatents.com</a> </span><br />
<br />
Robert J. Sayfie, Registered Patent Attorneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06027560117674215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1284034890696774518.post-55833684301397536432011-06-18T22:11:00.001-04:002011-06-18T22:12:24.579-04:00OBVIOUSNESS AS OF TODAY<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">A recent precedential decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,<a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1411.pdf"> <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">In re Klein</i></a>, discusses the obviousness of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/200,747 under 35 U.S.C. §103.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Inventor, Arnold G. Klein (“Klein”), appeals the final decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”), which rejected certain claims provided in the patent application.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The invention, titled “Convenience Nectar Mixing and Storage Devices,” provides a means to easily proportion water to sugar ratios for hummingbirds, orioles, and butterflies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While the ratios are not claimed as novel, the primary claim at issue is <o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">[a] convenience nectar mixing device for use in preparation of sugar-water nectar . . . comprising: a container that is adapted to receive water, receiving means fixed to said container, and a divider movably held by said receiving means . . . .<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The Board made five separate rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 based on references to five prior U.S. patents.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Board defines the issue Klein is seeking to solve with his device as a “compartment separation problem.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Board contends that keeping things separated is not novel to nectar mixing and storage devices, and “nothing about the prior art with adjustable, removable dividers is unique to their particular applications.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Finally, the Board argues that nothing more than ordinary skill is required to solve the particular problem Klein is trying to solve; essentially, the invention is obvious.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">35 U.S.C §103(a) provides:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0.5in 10pt;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">[a] patent may not be obtained . . . if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The Court states that a determination of obviousness under §103 is ultimately a question of law, but is based on several underlying factual findings, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; (3) the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and (4) evidence of secondary factors, such as commercial success, long-felt need, and the failure of others.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, a reference will only qualify as prior art for an obviousness determination under §103 when it is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">analogous</i> to the claimed invention.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">To determine whether prior art is analogous to the present invention, the court determines (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Klein argues that the Board erred when it determined the referenced patents—upon which the rejections were based—are “reasonably pertinent to the particular problem addressed by Klein.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Three of the referenced inventions provide containers that aim to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">separate</i> the contents put inside the container.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Conversely, Klein’s invention seeks to provide a means to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">mix</i> the contents of the container.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Furthermore, none of the referenced containers are “adapted to receive water.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Court agrees that these distinctions render the references not “reasonably pertinent.” <o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The last two patents referenced by the Board provide containers that facilitate the mixing of two separated substances.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, neither presents a container with moveable dividers capable of preparing different ratios like Klein’s invention.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Court defined Klein’s problem as “making a nectar feeder with <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">a moveable divider to prepare different ratios </i>of sugar and water for different animals.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Viewing the problem in this manner, an inventor would not consider either of the references because of their lack of moveable dividers and inability to prepare different ratios.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In conclusion, the last two references also fail as “reasonably pertinent” to Klein’s invention.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Because none of the references upon which the Board based their rejection were “reasonably pertinent,” the Court holds that the references are not analogous art.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Accordingly, the Board’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103 cannot be sustained.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Credit to Ashley Meyer for this case summary.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%; margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%;">Visit <a href="http://www.sayfiepatents.com/">www.sayfiepatents.com</a></span></span></div>Robert J. Sayfie, Registered Patent Attorneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06027560117674215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1284034890696774518.post-47327686047000361592011-04-12T22:25:00.011-04:002011-04-13T09:40:59.963-04:00How Specific Should I Be With Written Descriptions in Patent Applications?<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">A recent United States <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1020.pdf">Court of Appeals decision, Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. v Ball Metal Beverage Container Corporation</a>, answers this question. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">In <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Crown</i>, Ball Metal argued the Crown’s written description of US Patent Nos. 6,935,826 (‘826 patent’) and 6,848,875 (‘875 patent’) only covers driving a chuck <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">outside</b><br />
of the can end’s reinforcing bead (not <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">inside</b>, as well). Ball Metal stated Crown’s patent claims were not specific enough, stating Crown relied on the premise of saving metal more than the methods Crown used and the methods Crown did not use to make the product.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><br />
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_112.htm">35 United States Code, section 112</a>, states:<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">“The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><br />
</span><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">To determine sufficiency of the written description the court looks at whether the description is specific enough to allow “persons of ordinary skill in the art” to realize that the invention is<br />
what the description claims it to be. <o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><br />
</span><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">The court will consider whether the inventor had possession at the time the application was filed. Possession requires “an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” <o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><br />
</span><span class="apple-style-span"><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">In the current case, Crown’s patents aim to correct two problems:<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><br />
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">1. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Reduce metal usage, and<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><br />
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">2. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">Reduce scuffing to the can end wall.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><br />
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">The Court determined the correction of these two problems was specified in the written description as well as in the descriptive figures enough to indicate the methods Crown used to make the product. <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><br />
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">In addition, the Court mentioned the Patent and Trademark Officer requested Crown<br />
to file a divisional application and separate the method and product claims. To which the Court requires: “A patentee need only describe the product as claimed, and need not describe an unclaimed method of making the claimed product.” Therefore, Crown only needed to explain the method of making the product in the description, and did not need to anticipate methods Crown was not claiming in the patent to make the same product. </span><br />
<br />
Ms. Brittney Mestdagh created this case summary.</span><br />
<div><span style="font-family: Arial;"><br />
</span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial;">Visit <a href="http://www.sayfiepatents.com/">www.sayfiepatents.com</a></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Arial;"><br />
</span></div>Robert J. Sayfie, Registered Patent Attorneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06027560117674215733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1284034890696774518.post-17072285091764437962011-02-13T19:05:00.005-05:002011-02-13T19:52:05.511-05:00IS THERE A DEADLINE ON WHEN AN INVENTOR CAN FILE A PATENT APPLICATION?<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Yes. Patentability, including certain deadlines, is primarily governed by the statute of <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_102.htm">35 United States Code, section 102</a></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">This statute, at subsection (b), states that an inventor can not file a patent application if: </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: "Arial", "sans-serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">"...(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, <strong>more than one year prior to the date of the application</strong> for patent in the United States..."</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Also, in some countries, a patent application must be filed before it is first used or offered for sale. Therefore, </span><span style="font-family: Arial;">an inventor may want to file a patent application before (1) offering the invention for sale; (2) publicly using the invention; or (3) describing the invention in a printed publication.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Visit <a href="http://www.sayfiepatents.com/">http://www.sayfiepatents.com/</a> or call Robert J. Sayfie at 888-468-0444.</span>Robert J. Sayfie, Registered Patent Attorneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06027560117674215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1284034890696774518.post-6345853117209414762010-11-13T14:51:00.002-05:002010-11-13T14:54:03.579-05:00Why Should I File a Trademark Application?<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The benefits of federal trademark registration are:</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1. Constructive notice nationwide of the trademark owner's claim;</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2. Evidence of ownership of the trademark;</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3. Jurisdiction of federal courts may be invoked;</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">4. Registration can be used as a basis for obtaining registration in foreign countries; and</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">5. Registration may be filed with U.S. Customs Service to prevent importation of infringing foreign goods.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Visit <a href="http://www.sayfiepatents.com/">http://www.sayfiepatents.com/</a> or call Robert J. Sayfie at 1-888-468-0444 with your patent and trademark questions.</span>Robert J. Sayfie, Registered Patent Attorneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06027560117674215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1284034890696774518.post-87600495827974901332010-10-03T18:25:00.000-04:002010-10-03T18:25:04.600-04:00At what point in time do damages begin for patent infringement?<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Typically, a non-provisional patent application is published eighteen (18) months after it is filed. If someone is infringing a patentee's invention, damages based on a reasonable royalty rate begin on the publication date. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">However a patentee can not file a lawsuit in court until the patent issues.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The statute that governs the damages starting at the publication date, is </span><a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_154.htm"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">35 U.S.C. 154</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> - Contents and terms of patent; provisional rights.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(d) PROVISIONAL RIGHTS.-</span> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(1) IN GENERAL.- In addition to other rights provided by this section, a patent shall include the right to obtain a reasonable royalty from any person who, during the period beginning on the date of publication of the application for such patent under section 122(b), or in the case of an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) designating the United States under Article 21(2)(a) of such treaty, the date of publication of the application, and ending on the date the patent is issued- </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(A) (i) makes, uses, offers for sale, or sells in the United States the invention as claimed in the published patent application or imports such an invention into the United States; or</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(ii) if the invention as claimed in the published patent application is a process, uses, offers for sale, or sells in the United States or imports into the United States products made by that process as claimed in the published patent application; and</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(B) had actual notice of the published patent application and, in a case in which the right arising under this paragraph is based upon an international application designating the United States that is published in a language other than English, had a translation of the international application into the English language.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(2) RIGHT BASED ON SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL INVENTIONS.- The right under paragraph (1) to obtain a reasonable royalty shall not be available under this subsection unless the invention as claimed in the patent is substantially identical to the invention as claimed in the published patent application.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(3) TIME LIMITATION ON OBTAINING A REASONABLE ROYALTY.- The right under paragraph (1) to obtain a reasonable royalty shall be available only in an action brought not later than 6 years after the patent is issued. The right under paragraph (1) to obtain a reasonable royalty shall not be affected by the duration of the period described in paragraph (1).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(4) REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERNATIONAL APPLICATIONS- </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(A) EFFECTIVE DATE.- The right under paragraph (1) to obtain a reasonable royalty based upon the publication under the treaty defined in section 351(a) of an international application designating the United States shall commence on the date of publication under the treaty of the international application, or, if the publication under the treaty of the international application is in a language other than English, on the date on which the Patent and Trademark Office receives a translation of the publication in the English language.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(B) COPIES.- The Director may require the applicant to provide a copy of the international application and a translation thereof</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Call Robert J. Sayfie with your patent or trademark questions, or visit <a href="http://www.sayfiepatents.com/">http://www.sayfiepatents.com/</a>.</span>Robert J. Sayfie, Registered Patent Attorneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06027560117674215733noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1284034890696774518.post-37706675124342242902010-09-14T22:25:00.002-04:002010-09-14T22:28:44.315-04:00What is prior art that can make my invention not-patentable?<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Prior art is described at <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_102.htm">35 U.S.C. 102</a> Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent. The statute recites:</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(c) he has abandoned the invention, or</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(d) the invention was first patented or caused to be patented, or was the subject of an inventor's certificate, by the applicant or his legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application for patent or inventor's certificate filed more than twelve months before the filing of the application in the United States, or</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(e) the invention was described in - (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language; or</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented, or</span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person's invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person's invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Call Robert at 1-888-468-0444 with your questions regarding patent or trademark law. Or visit </span><a href="http://www.sayfiepatents.com/"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">www.sayfiepatents.com</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">.</span>Robert J. Sayfie, Registered Patent Attorneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06027560117674215733noreply@blogger.com0