How can I stop someone from importing my U.S. patented invention into the U.S.?

Answer: (1) sue them in Federal Court; or (2) File a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (USITC).

A patent provides the patentee the right to prevent others from (1) making, (2) using, (3) selling, (4) offering for sale, or (5) importing the claimed invention.

Depending on circumstances, it may be more beneficial for a U.S. patentee to file a "337 Complaint" with the USITC.

A patentee should evaluate the different options available.

Visit http://www.sayfiepatents.com/.

Is a Method of Doing Business Patentable?

The recent United States Supreme Court decision in Bilski v. Kappos answers this question.  From that decision, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a guide for patent examiners.  The guide provides a list of factors that a patent examiner are to evaluate.   

Factors that weigh toward patentability are:

1.  Recitation of a machine or transformation, either express or inherent;
2.  The claim is directed toward applying a law of nature; and
3.  The claim is more than a mere statement of a concept.

Factors weighing against patentability are:

1.  No recitation or an insufficient recitation of a machine or transformation, either express or inherent;
2.  The claim is not directed to an application of a law of nature;
3.  The claim is a mere statement of a general concept.

Contact The Patent Law Office of Robert J. Sayfie if you have any questions, at 1-888-468-0444, or visit http://www.sayfiepatents.com/.

What Does Obviousness Mean With Respect To Patents?

35 U.S.C. 103 Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter. - Patent Laws

(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that 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. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.

(b)

     (1) Notwithstanding subsection (a), and upon timely election by the applicant for patent to proceed under this subsection, a biotechnological process using or resulting in a composition of matter that is novel under section 102 and nonobvious under subsection (a) of this section shall be considered nonobvious if-
          (A) claims to the process and the composition of matter are contained in either the same application for patent or in separate applications having the same effective filing date; and
          (B) the composition of matter, and the process at the time it was invented, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.

     (2) A patent issued on a process under paragraph (1)-

          (A) shall also contain the claims to the composition of matter used in or made by that process, or

          (B) shall, if such composition of matter is claimed in another patent, be set to expire on the same date as such other patent, notwithstanding section 154.

     (3) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term "biotechnological process" means-

          (A) a process of genetically altering or otherwise inducing a single- or multi-celled organism to-

               (i) express an exogenous nucleotide sequence,
               (ii) inhibit, eliminate, augment, or alter expression of an endogenous nucleotide sequence, or
              (iii) express a specific physiological characteristic not naturally associated with said organism;

          (B) cell fusion procedures yielding a cell line that expresses a specific protein, such as a monoclonal antibody; and

          (C) a method of using a product produced by a process defined by subparagraph (A) or (B), or a combination of subparagraphs (A) and (B).

(c)
     (1) Subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies as prior art only under one or more of subsections (e), (f), and (g) of section 102 of this title, shall not preclude patentability under this section where the subject matter and the claimed invention were, at the time the claimed invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.

     (2) For purposes of this subsection, subject matter developed by another person and a claimed invention shall be deemed to have been owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person if -

          (A) the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the date the claimed invention was made;

          (B) the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; and

          (C) the application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.

      (3) For purposes of paragraph (2), the term "joint research agreement" means a written contract, grant, or cooperative agreement entered into by two or more persons or entities for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research work in the field of the claimed invention.

the Supreme Court's decision on BILSKI

On Monday, 28 June 2010, the United States Supreme Court decided a case regarding the patentability of business method patents.  The case can be found at Bilski et al. v Kappos, 08-964.

The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuits rejection of a patent application regarding business method patents.

Claim 1 of the patent application recites,

"(a) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity provider and consumers of said commodity wherein said consumers purchase said commodity at a fixed rate based upon historical averages, said fixed rate corresponding to a risk position of said consumers;
(b) identifying market participants for said commodity having a counter-risk position to said consumers; and
(c) initiating a series of transactions between said commodity provider and said market participants at a second fixed rate such that said series of market participant transactions balances the risk position of said series of consumer transactions."

The Court reasoned:

     In light of these precedents, it is clear that petitioners’ application is not a patentable “process.” Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk: “Hedging is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce and taught in any introductory finance class.”
     The patent application here can be rejected under our precedents on the unpatentability of abstract ideas.The Court, therefore, need not define further what constitutes a patentable “process,” beyond pointing to the definition of that term provided in §100(b) and looking to the guideposts in Benson, Flook, and Diehr.

Therefore, a business method that is known to the public, is probably not patentable, even if it is integrated with a computer program, or software.

Visit http://www.sayfiepatents.com/

THE UNITED STATES' MOST UNAPPRECIATED ASSET - INNOVATION

Where would the United States be today without the innovations of:

1. Thomas Edison
          Thomas Edison patented over 1000 inventions include the phonograph, the incandescent light bulb, and the motion picture;

2. Samuel F. B. Morse
          His inventions include the telegraph and morse code;

3. Alexander Graham Bell
          His inventions include the telephone in 1876;

4. Henry Ford
          The automotive industry drove the American economy since it inception;

5. George Eastman
          He invented the Kodak camera;

6. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs
          Computers.

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.

Where would the U.S. be had the above inventions been invented or primarily developed in another country?

Visit http://www.sayfiepatents.com/Visit http://www.sayfiepatents.com/

WHETHER A TRANSFEROR OF TRADEMARK RIGHTS CAN STILL USE THE MARK FOR OTHER COMMERCIAL PURPOSES?

Answer:  It depends what is specifically recited in the agreement.  If the transferee (receiver of the rights) wants all commercial rights, the agreement should specify that the transferor is transferring or selling or assigning "all commercial rights" not only "trademark rights."  The case of JA Apparel v Abboud, 2010 WL 103399 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 12, 2010), the plaintiff, JA Apparel sued Defendant Abboud because in 2007 Abboud was intending to, or did use his name for commercial purposes of selling clothing, and in 2000, the parties entered into an agreement.  In the agreement, Abboud conveyed, "all of [his] right, title and interest in ant to...[t]he names, trademarks, trade names, service marks, logos, insignias...trademark registrations and applications therefor, and goodwill related thereto."

Abboud contended that this did not include all commercial purposes of his name.  The Second Circuit Court agreed.

Lesson: If you are receiving trademark rights, it may be a good idea to include in any agreement, that the transferor is also transferring "all commercial uses of the name" or something similar.

Call Robert at 1-888-468-0444 with your patent or trademark questions.
Visit http://www.sayfiepatents.com/

WHAT IS A CONTINUATION IN PART (CIP) PATENT APPLICATION?

Under the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 201.08; A continuation-in-part is an application filed during the lifetime of an earlier nonprovisional application, repeating some substantial portion or all of the earlier nonprovisional application and adding matter not disclosed in the said earlier nonprovisional application. (In re Klein, 1930 C.D. 2, 393 O.G. 519 (Comm'r Pat. 1930)). The continuation-in-part application may only be filed under 37 CFR 1.53(b). The continuation-in-part application must claim the benefit of the prior nonprovisional application under 35 U.S.C. 120 or 365(c). For more information on claiming the benefit of a prior nonprovisional application, see MPEP § 201.11.
A continuation-in-part application CANNOT be filed as a continued prosecution application (CPA) under 37 CFR 1.53(d).

An application claiming the benefit of a provisional application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) should not be called a "continuation-in-part" of the provisional application since an application that claims benefit of a provisional application is a nonprovisional application of a provisional application, not a continuation, division, or continuation-in-part of the provisional application.

The mere filing of a continuation-in-part does not itself create a presumption that the applicant acquiesces in any rejections which may be outstanding in the copending national nonprovisional application or applications upon which the continuation-in-part application relies for benefit.

A continuation-in-part filed by a sole applicant may also derive from an earlier joint application showing a portion only of the subject matter of the later application, subject to the conditions set forth in 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78. Subject to the same conditions, a joint continuation-in-part application may derive from an earlier sole application.

Unless the filing date of the earlier nonprovisional application is actually needed, for example, in the case of an interference or to overcome a reference, there is no need for the Office to make a determination as to whether the requirement of 35 U.S.C. 120, that the earlier nonprovisional application discloses the invention of the second application in the manner provided by the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112, is met and whether a substantial portion of all of the earlier nonprovisional application is repeated in the second application in a continuation-in-part situation. Accordingly, an alleged continuation-in-part application should be permitted to claim the benefit of the filing date of an earlier nonprovisional application if the alleged continuation-in-part application complies with the **>other< requirements of 35 U.S.C. 120 >and 37 CFR 1.78, such as:

     (A) The first application and the alleged continuation-in-part application were filed with at least one common inventor;
     (B) The alleged continuation-in-part application was "filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application or an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application"; and
     (C) The alleged continuation-in-part application "contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application." (The specific reference **>must be submitted either in the first sentence(s) of the specification or in an application data sheet (see 37 CFR 1.76(b)(5)).) See MPEP § 201.11 for more information on claiming the benefit of a prior nonprovisional application.< For notation to be put in the file history by the examiner in the case of a continuation-in-part application see MPEP § 202.02. See MPEP § 708 for order of examination. Use form paragraph 2.06 to remind applicant of possible continuation-in-part status.

¶ 2.06 Possible Status as Continuation-in-Part

This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. [1], filed [2], and adds and claims additional disclosure not presented in the prior application. Since this application names an inventor or inventors named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120 and 37 CFR 1.78.

Call Robert at 1-888-468-0444 or visit http://www.sayfiepatents.com/ if you have any questions.