Tagged: Patent Prosecution
Gibbons P.C. is again proud to announce a two-day program for Pharmaceutical Management at the Rutgers University Blanche and Irwin Lerner Center for Pharmaceutical Studies in Newark, NJ. The program, which is open to the public, includes in-depth presentations relating to topics including intellectual property, regulatory, financial and marketing issues relating to the pharmaceutical industry, as well as drug development and the role of biotechnology in pharmaceutical development.
In Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, an opinion penned by Chief Judge Rader, a three judge panel that also included Circuit Judges Newman and Dky strongly admonished against the use of impermissible hindsight towards a finding of obviousness. Despite finding that the accused products did not infringe and following a comprehensive analysis of hindsight, the CAFC further held that U.S. Patent No. 5,413,148 (the “‘148 Patent”) was not invalid under § 103.
On July 2, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office announced that it will be expanding its regional office program to include Dallas, Texas, Denver, Colorado and San Jose, California. The first regional office, the Elijah J. McCoy United States Patent and Trademark Office, in Detroit, Michigan, is scheduled to open on July 13 of this year. Section 23 of the America Invents Act required the USPTO to establish at least 3 additional satellite offices by September 2014.
Under the joint auspices of the US Patent and Trademark Office the National Institute of Standards and Technology/Manufacturing Extension Partnership, the IP Awareness Assessment is now in the beta stage and available for businesses and inventors to assess their intellectual property awareness. Dubbed “A business and inventor’s IP education tool,” this web-based offering is designed to assess IP knowledge and provide personalized training resources for businesses and inventors.
Last month, Twitter introduced a draft of a radical employee patent assignment plan that the company hopes will play a part in a world “that fosters innovation, rather than dampening it.” The popular social media platform hopes that this initiative will affect how companies use their patents, which according to Twitter, sometimes impedes the innovation of others.
Yesterday, in a unanimous decision, Kappos v. Hyatt, the Supreme Court affirmed a ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit holding that in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 145, a patent applicant has the right to present new evidence to the District Court regardless of whether that evidence previously was or could have been presented during the proceedings before the PTO. Further, when such new evidence is presented, the District Court must review any related factual conclusions affected by the new evidence de novo, without giving deference to any prior decision or finding of the PTO.
On April 2, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office announced the implementation of a new After Final Consideration Pilot. The AFCP will allow an examiner to consider and enter amendments submitted after a final rejection that will require new searching by the examiner. For a long time the Patent Office has been monitoring the length of time that applications have been pending and the increasing number of applications filed. The Patent Office has proposed numerous solutions that attempt to bend the application curve, including accelerated examination, pre-appeal brief conferences, and limiting the number of requests for continued examinations and continuation applications. The AFCP is another effort that has the potential to help reduce the application volume.
In a much anticipated decision, a unanimous Supreme Court today reversed the ruling of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, and held that Prometheus’ process is not patent eligible. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., No. 2008-1403, slip. op. (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2010), rev’d, 566 U.S. __ (2012). Mayo purchased and used medical diagnostic tests based on Prometheus Labs’ patents, but later sold and marketed its own diagnostic test. Prometheus Labs brought suit, asserting that Mayo’s test kits infringed its patents.
In In re Staats, a Federal Circuit panel including Judges Dyk, O’Malley and Reyna found that the requirement set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 251 for filing broadening reissue application within two years of patent issuance is met once a first broadening reissue application has been filed within that time period, and that subsequently-filed and broadening continuation applications based on the first broadening reissue application need not be filed within the two-year period. In reaching this decision, the Federal Circuit interpreted and affirmed a ruling made by its predessor court, the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) in In re Doll.
In 2006, the Chinese government pledged to foster future innovation in China by promoting science and technology development in key fields and enhancing innovation capacity. In the National Medium- and Long-Term Plan for Science and Technology Development (2006-2020) published by the State Council, China pledged that by 2020 research and development (“R&D”) investment will exceed 2.5% of China’s total GDP, and that progress of science and technology will contribute at least 60 percent to the country’s development.
