The Patentability Search

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "The Patentability Search"

Transcription

1 Chapter 5 The Patentability Search 5:1 Introduction 5:2 What Is a Patentability Search? 5:3 Why Order a Patentability Search? 5:3.1 Economics 5:3.2 A Better Application Can Be Prepared 5:3.3 Commercial Reasons for Conducting a Patentability Search 5:3.4 Avoid Festo 5:3.5 Foreign Filing Decisions 5:4 Why Not to Order a Patentability Search 5:5 Procedure for Ordering a Patentability Search 5:5.1 Selecting the Searcher 5:5.2 Information to Include in the Search Request 5:5.3 Scope of the Search 5:5.4 Cost of the Search 5:5.5 Example of a Search Request Letter 5:6 Limitations of a Patentability Search 5:7 Reporting the Results of the Patentability Search Exhibit 5-1 Letter Ordering Patentability Search Exhibit 5-2 Notice to Clients Regarding Patentability Searches Exhibit 5-3 Letter Reporting Patentability Study Results (Favorable) Exhibit 5-4 Letter Reporting Patentability Study Results (Negative) Exhibit 5-5 Letter Reporting Patentability Study Results (Neutral) 5:1 Introduction This chapter is directed to a procedure that more often than not is conducted before a patent application is written, namely, the patentability search. The following sections discuss what is a patentability search, why do one, why in some circumstances one is not ordered, what the procedure is for ordering a patentability search, what the limitations are on a patentability search, and how to report the results 5 1

2 5:2 HOW TO WRITE A PATENT APPLICATION of a patentability search. This chapter does not discuss how to actually do a patentability search. In general, the search is left to expert searchers. Most (but not all) practitioners do not conduct their own searches. 5:2 What Is a Patentability Search? Only infrequently does a patentability search actually ascertain whether an invention is novel. As discussed in section 5:6 below, because of the limitations of a patentability search, rarely is a reference developed that anticipates or renders an invention non-novel. It is usually impossible with a conventional patentability search to determine whether an invention is truly novel; that is, it is impossible to prove a negative, namely that there is no anticipatory reference anywhere in the world. Most patentability searches are directed to determining whether an invention is obvious or nonobvious. One of the key purposes of the search is to determine the chances of obtaining a patent in the Patent Office. Most patent applications that do not issue fail to do so because of the Patent Office s perception that the invention is obvious under 35 U.S.C Because a patentability search is conducted in an attempt to determine the likelihood that the U.S. Patent Office will issue a patent on a particular invention, patentability searches generally are used to determine if an invention is obvious. A patentability search usually has the following elements: 1. The first element is a search request made from the practitioner to the person doing the search. The requesting letter usually identifies how much financial effort is to be expended on the search, defines the invention, and identifies the general categories of references that are to be investigated. 2. The second element is the actual search conducted by the searcher. 3. The third element is a review of the references developed by the searcher. 4. The fourth element is a report to the client regarding the search results. A patentability search is not a validity search. The term validity search is used to refer to searches that are substantially more thorough and more complete than the typical patentability search. Much more effort is expended on validity searches. They are usually reserved for situations where much more is riding on the results of the search than just a decision whether or not to file a patent application, 5 2

3 The Patentability Search 5:3.2 which is the principal objective of a patentability search. Validity searches are frequently used in the following contexts: 1. By the defendant in a patent infringement suit in order to find references to invalidate the patent in suit. 2. By the patentee before instituting a patent infringement suit to determine the likelihood of the patent s surviving the litigation. 3. By a prospective licensee or purchaser of a patent to determine how much the patent is worth. 5:3 Why Order a Patentability Search? There are many reasons for ordering a patentability search, beyond the obvious reason of determining whether or not to file a patent application. These are discussed in subsections 5:3.1 to 5:3.5. 5:3.1 Economics A patentability search can be conducted to assist in making the decision of whether or not to invest the money in filing a patent application. The cost of a patentability search is usually much less than the cost of a patent application. The typical ratio of the cost of a patentability search to the cost of the corresponding patent application is anywhere from 1:4 to 1:20, with a typical midrange number being about 1:7. If the ratio is 1:7, then if, as a result of a patentability search, a decision is made not to file an application one out of seven times, the patentability search has justified itself on this basis alone. Patentability searches are only infrequently conducted for design patents. Design patent applications cost substantially less than utility applications, and there is little economic justification for conducting a patentability search before filing a design patent application. 5:3.2 A Better Application Can Be Prepared The patentability search results allow a practitioner to prepare a better patent application. Patentability searches help identify the features of the invention that are most likely to be patentable. With this knowledge, the practitioner can write an application that stresses those features and be certain to have an adequate disclosure of those features in the specification and display them in the drawings. Without a patentability search, the emphasis of the application can improperly be placed on nonpatentable or trivial features. Moreover, by having typical patents in the art, it is much easier for the patent practitioner to write the application. Sometimes chunks of the specification of a prior art patent can be lifted bodily or 5 3

4 5:3.3 HOW TO WRITE A PATENT APPLICATION incorporated by reference, as discussed in chapter 9, into the new patent application. This allows the application to be prepared with less effort, and thus at a lower cost to the client. Another advantage of a patentability search is that prior art patents reveal to the practitioner terminology typically used in the art and how much detail needs to be put in the patent application. The prior art patents provide an indication of the level of skill in the art and allow the practitioner to determine how much disclosure is needed to enable those of ordinary skill in the art to practice an invention. Thus, having prior art patents allows the practitioner to ascertain early how much information needs to be included in the application to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C Another advantage of having prior art patents available is that ideas for claim structure, scope of claims, and different types of claims other practitioners have used in the art are made available. Why re-invent the wheel when excellent guidance in preparing claims for an invention can be obtained from prior art patents? 5:3.3 Commercial Reasons for Conducting a Patentability Search There are sound commercial reasons why a client would want a patentability search. Often the commercial potential of a product depends upon whether or not a patent can be obtained. For many products, it makes no sense for the client to enter the market if the exclusivity provided by a U.S. patent cannot be achieved. The ability to prevent knockoffs can be a key factor in the commercial viability of a particular product. In these situations, the client needs an early indication of the chances of obtaining a U.S. patent. If a substantial capital investment is involved, the client may even go beyond a patentability search and request a patentability study. 5:3.4 Avoid Festo A reason to conduct a thorough patentability search is to avoid the holding of Festo. 1 According to Festo, when there is prosecution history estoppel relating to a claim element such as by narrowing the claim element to avoid prior art, the availability of the doctrine of equivalents for that claim element is very limited. By performing a thorough prior art search, it may be possible to draft the claims so that no amendment is needed during prosecution. This is very difficult to accomplish when the prior art is unknown at the time the claims are drafted. 1. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002). 5 4

5 The Patentability Search 5:4 5:3.5 Foreign Filing Decisions Many searches are useful in determining whether or not to file international applications. The cost of international applications is very high, and in some countries, such as Japan, it can approach the cost of the initial U.S. filing. Foreign filings usually need to be effected within one year of the U.S. filing date to obtain the benefit of the Paris Convention and other treaties. Often, no search report is received from the U.S. Patent Office sufficiently early to be helpful in determining whether or not to file internationally. Accordingly, in view of the cost of foreign filing, it makes eminent sense to conduct a patentability search before making the decision of whether or not to file international applications. It makes very little sense to spend $10,000 to $20,000 on international applications only to learn that an anticipatory reference was sitting in the files of the U.S. Patent Office. 5:4 Why Not to Order a Patentability Search Although there are many good reasons for ordering a patentability search, as discussed in the preceding section, there are many situations in which a patentability search is not ordered. Before recommending to a client whether or not to conduct a patentability search, those situations need to be considered. They include the following: 1. The client can afford only either a patentability search or a patent application. The patent application should be filed without first conducting a patentability search. It makes little sense to order a patentability search for a client that cannot afford both a patentability search and a patent application. If the patentability search comes out favorable, and the client cannot afford the patent application because money was spent on the patentability search, it was very foolish to order the patentability search. 2. Frequently, there is insufficient time to order a patentability search before filing a patent application. There are many times that a patent application has to be prepared very quickly. For example, if the client is about to release the product and needs patent pending on the product to deter potential competitors from copying the product, the application must be filed quickly. Other situations include when a statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) is running. Another situation in which an application needs to be filed promptly is when the client is ready to publish a paper about the invention, or about to release the product, and there is interest in international filing. 5 5

6 5:5 HOW TO WRITE A PATENT APPLICATION Many foreign countries, including Japan and Germany, are absolute patentability countries. If a paper is published about the invention before the U.S. patent application is filed, then, in absolute patentability countries, it would be impossible to obtain a patent. When there is limited time available for conducting a patentability search, many practitioners have the patentability search conducted and the patent application prepared in parallel, that is, at the same time. If the results of the patentability search are available before the application is completed, then it is possible to fine-tune the application based on the results of the patentability search. Even if a U.S. application has been filed, the results of the patentability search may indicate that the preparation of a continuation-inpart application is needed, or that changes are needed in the U.S. application before it is filed internationally. Thus, even when there is insufficient time to complete a patentability search before filing the U.S. application, it may be valuable to complete a patentability search afterwards in view of the advantages discussed in the preceding section. 3. Another reason for not conducting a patentability search is that there is nothing to be learned by it. In some technologies, there is nothing available in the published literature, because the technology is so new, or the technology has a tradition of secrecy and nonpublication. Another time when nothing can be learned by the patentability search is when the inventor is very knowledgeable in the field and is doing research at the cutting edge of the technology. These situations often arise in dealing with university researchers who are the leaders in their field. However, even with researchers, the author has often been able to develop a surprise reference as a result of a patentability search. 5:5 Procedure for Ordering a Patentability Search Ordering a patentability search is a straightforward procedure. Once the searcher is chosen, all that needs to be done is to provide the searcher with sufficient information to investigate the patentability of the features that are most likely patentable, along with guidance as to the budget. 5 6

7 The Patentability Search 5:5.3 5:5.1 Selecting the Searcher Selection of an appropriate searcher is often problematic. The best guidance can be obtained from other practitioners who have had success with particular searchers. Choosing an incompetent searcher, or a searcher not competent in a particular technology, is foolhardy. Not only can the cost of the search be wasted, but a false sense of security can be the result. When picking a searcher, be certain that the searcher is competent in the particular technology. Searchers specialize in particular areas, such as electrical, biotechnology, chemical, metallurgical, electrical, computer, and mechanical. More than one searcher may be used. A first searcher can be used for the files of the Patent Office, a second searcher for computerized literature searches, and a third searcher for foreign patents. 5:5.2 Information to Include in the Search Request In the search request, provide information sufficient that an adequate search can be conducted. Generally, the more information the better. If drawings or photographs of the invention are available, they should be provided. The search request should identify those features of the invention that the inventor believes may be patentable. It is also helpful to identify the advantages of the invention. The budget should be specified to the searchers. Most searchers have standard charges, and if a standard search at the standard charge is to be done, all that needs to be stated in the search request letter is to conduct the usual patentability search. If any patents or prior art are available, they can be provided to the searcher. Having a relevant patent can be of great assistance to the searcher, since it can help identify the classes that should be searched. If the search is to extend beyond the files of the Patent Office, the searcher needs to be told that. The searcher should be encouraged to consult with the examiner in a particular art. Competent searchers often do this on their own. The examiners are the best source of information for identifying the classes in which a search should be conducted. 5:5.3 Scope of the Search Invariably, the search includes a review of U.S. patents. The typical patentability search is conducted only in the files of the U.S. Patent Office. The searcher identifies the classes in which the invention is classified using the Manual of Classification provided by the Patent Office. Then, all the patents in a particular class are reviewed. The searcher identifies those patents that are particularly relevant in order to provide them to the practitioner requesting the search. 5 7

8 5:5.4 HOW TO WRITE A PATENT APPLICATION A search limited to the files of the U.S. Patent Office is often inadequate in such fast-developing technologies as biotechnology and computer software. In those circumstances, the searcher is often authorized and requested to complement the search with a literature search. Further, in some technologies, the leaders are not American researchers, and foreign patents can be a better search source. Most searches of U.S. patents are computerized, using databases available at such sites as (the Patent Office website), Google, and Thus, depending on the invention, U.S. patents, foreign patents, and nonpatent literature can be searched. It all depends upon the particular technology and the budget. Before ordering a search, these considerations should be discussed with the inventor. The inventor can provide a budget, and answer the question as to what literature would have valuable information. Also, the inventor can provide key words for conducting a computer search. 5:5.4 Cost of the Search The amount of effort afforded to the patentability search is primarily a factor of the cost of preparing a patent application. It makes little sense to spend $5,000 on a search when an application can be filed for $10,000. In 2009 dollars, the total cost for a patentability search is usually less than $2,000, including searcher fees, which typically are between $150 and $500, depending upon the complexity of the search, the technology involved, the quality of the searcher, and the searcher s overhead. 5:5.5 Example of a Search Request Letter A typical request letter is provided as Exhibit 5-1, and the following annotations apply to the exhibit: (a) (b) (c) (d) The word usual is interpreted by most searchers to mean that the search will be conducted at the standard charge, and only the files of the U.S. Patent Office will be examined. If something beyond U.S. patents needs to be examined, the searcher needs to be told. A drawing is enclosed, which is of great assistance. Truly, a picture is worth a thousand words to the searcher. A U.S. patent is enclosed to assist the searcher in identifying the classes to search. The novel features are identified, so the searcher knows what to look for. 5 8

9 The Patentability Search 5:7 (e) (f) It is beneficial to include in the letter an expected deadline. Otherwise, the search request can repeatedly continue to be moved to the bottom of the searcher s stack. Explicitly allow the searcher to come back and ask for further authorization. Often, because of the complexity of the technology or the fact that the search needs to cover many classes, the searcher cannot do an effective search within the usual guidelines. Allow the searcher to have the option of asking for further authorization. 5:6 Limitations of a Patentability Search Patentability searches have significant limitations. Usually, they are limited to the files of the U.S. Patent Office from which patents can often be missing. In addition, searchers are known to miss key references or search the wrong classes. Searchers are not perfect, and a perfect search is not financially warranted. If a search approaching perfect is needed, then what should be ordered is a validity study, not a patentability search. It is extremely important that the client be advised of the limitations of a patentability search. Unreasonable expectations should not be encouraged. Exhibit 5-2 is a sample of a standard notice that can be provided to clients, setting forth the limitations of patentability searches. It is recommended that this form be provided to the client at the time the patentability search is ordered. The client should know exactly what is being paid for, including the limitations on the search. The notice regarding limitations does not have to be a separate form. It can be included in the letter confirming that a search has been requested, or in the search report itself. 5:7 Reporting the Results of the Patentability Search In reporting the results of the patentability search to the client, the following subjects need to be covered: 1. The subject matter of the search. 2. The references developed by the search. 3. A brief discussion of the more pertinent references. 4. For an unsophisticated client, a brief discussion of patentability and the nonobviousness requirements. 5 9

10 5:7 HOW TO WRITE A PATENT APPLICATION 5. The conclusion, if the conclusion is positive (as discussed below, it is not advisable to present negative conclusions in writing). 6. A reminder of the limitations of the patentability search. The author believes that if a conclusion is reached that the invention is not patentable, that should not be expressed in writing. There are many reasons for this. The principal reason is that the practitioner may be wrong, and the letter about nonpatentability can be discovered during litigation of a patent that issues on the invention. Such a letter could have a devastating effect on a jury or judge. Anything that is written relating to a patent application should be written with the assumption that it will be discovered by an adversary during litigation. It is foolhardy to rely on the attorney-client privilege or the workproduct privilege which, in many circumstances, may be held to be inapplicable or waived in patent litigation. Another reason for not providing a negative opinion is that there may be features of the invention that are not appreciated by the practitioner, but that are patentable. The practitioner may have misinterpreted a reference, or read too much into it. Often, the inventor, not the practitioner, is in the best position to determine what makes the invention unique compared to the prior art developed by the search. Thus, for these reasons, if it appears that the results are negative, the results should be reported without expressing an opinion, and the inventor should be requested to review the references and call to discuss the results. When discussing the references, consider that the references will need to be discussed in an information disclosure statement (see chapter 10). Any discrepancy between the analysis of a reference in an opinion letter and the analysis provided to the Patent Office in an information disclosure statement can give rise to probing crossexamination during litigation. Therefore, in describing the references, care must be exercised and it should be assumed that whatever is stated about the references in the report to the client will also be stated to the Patent Office. Exhibits 5-3, 5-4, and 5-5 are sample letters reporting patentability study results that are favorable, negative, and neutral, respectively. 5 10

11 Exhibit 5-1 Letter Ordering Patentability Search Mr. T. Searcher Re: Patentability Search re Portable Widget Our File No Dear Mr. Searcher: (a)* Please conduct the usual patentability search for the aboveidentified invention. (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) The subject matter is shown in the attached drawings. The widget shown in the attached drawings is useful for scanning inventory in the supermarket. Unlike prior art scanners, which are represented by the enclosed United States Patent No. 5,000,000, the portable scanner is extremely lightweight and portable. This was done by replacing conventional part A with part B, which is believed to be novel. In addition, conventional parts F, G, and H were combined into a single, new part. Further, instead of using material X, our client has gone to material Y for the housing. This material has never been used for forming such a complex shape before. We need the search results within three weeks. If for some reason, you cannot meet this deadline, please let me know. If further authorization is needed, please contact me in advance. * Annotations see section 5:5.5 in text. 5EX 1

12

13 Exhibit 5-2 Notice to Clients Regarding Patentability Searches Patentability searches have limitations that should be considered in using the results of a search. Because of these limitations, it is impossible for us to ever guarantee that a patent will issue on any invention. The limitations include the following: 1. A patentability search principally covers issued United States patents unless indicated otherwise in the search report. U.S. patent applications that have not been published are not searched because they are secret. Also our searchers database may include some foreign patents, periodical articles, and commercial activities as published on the internet may be developed during a patentability search, they are not searched as thorough as are United States patents. 2. The search conducted is a patentability search and not a right to use search, which is conducted to determine whether making, using, or selling an invention would infringe a United States patent. A right to use search is more comprehensive and more expensive than a patentability search. 3. Any opinion we provide is an informed opinion regarding the patentability of your invention. The patentability of an invention is a difficult legal question, and reasonable minds can differ. It is possible that an examiner, a judge, or a competitor may reach a different conclusion. We strongly recommend filing a patent application before publicly disclosing your invention or beginning any commercial activities. Such public disclosure or commercial activities can jeopardize your ability to obtain a patent in the United States and foreign countries. In some important foreign countries, any public disclosure or commercial activity anywhere in the world can prevent you from obtaining a patent. 5EX 3

14

15 Exhibit 5-3 Letter Reporting Patentability Study Results (Favorable) Client Re: Patentability Study re Your Invention Our File No Dear Client: In accordance with your request, we had a patentabilty study conducted for the above-identified invention. For the reasons detailed below, we conclude the invention is most likely patentable. The Search The search was directed to a device that prevents ***. With reference to the enclosed figure, the device 10 comprises ****. Search Result Our searcher developed the following references, a single copy of each of which is enclosed: JP to ABC US to DEF JP to GHI US to JKL US to MNO US to PQR All U.S. patents are classified. The searcher searched in classes *** and consulted with an appropriate examiner in the Patent Office to be sure the appropriate classes were searched. Of particular interest are DEF U.S. Patent Publication and Japanese Document GHI DEF is directed to *** There is no discussion in the DEF patent with regard to A*** or B***. The GHI Japanese reference describes a device that includes A*** but not B***. 5EX 5

16 Exhibit 5-3 Practising Law Institute HOW TO WRITE A PATENT APPLICATION Legal Standard To be patentable, an invention must be useful, novel (i.e., new), and non-obvious. Since the utility of your invention would not be disputed, the main issues are novelty and non-obviousness. The non-obviousness requirement is set forth in 35 U.S.C. 103, which states in part: A patent may not be obtained... 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. The U.S. Patent Office recently provided guidelines to the examiners with regard to how to apply the obviousness test. Those guidelines state: (A) The claimed invention combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) The claimed invention simply substitutes one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) The claimed invention uses a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) The claimed invention applies a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) The claimed invention is Obvious to try i.e., it chooses from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces, if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) There is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Analysis No single reference teaches all the elements of your invention, and therefore it is novel. 5EX 6

17 The Patentability Search Exhibit 5-3 With regard to the nonobvious standard, there is a possibility an examiner in the Patent Office could take the position that it would be obvious to modify the DEF device by incorporating A*** as taught by the Japanese reference. However, the combination still lacks B*** which is not taught by any of the references developed by the search. Presently only about 50-60% of patent applications are being allowed. It is our opinion that this invention is over the 60% mark for at least the reason the art does not teach your key feature B***. Conclusion For the reasons detailed above, we conclude your invention is most likely patentable. In considering the results of the search, please review the notice we provided regarding limitations of patentability searches. We did not consider infringement of any of the patents developed by the search. If you would like me to do so, please contact me. If you wish to proceed with a patent application or have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely yours, Sheldon, Mak & Anderson by Jeffrey G. Sheldon 5EX 7

18

19 Exhibit 5-4 Letter Reporting Patentability Study Results (Negative) Client Re: Patentability Study re Your Invention Our File No Dear Client: In accordance with your request, we had a patentabilty study conducted for the above-identified invention. For the reasons detailed below, we conclude the invention is most likely not patentable. The Search The search was directed to a device that prevents ***. With reference to the enclosed figure, the device 10 comprises ****. Search Result Our searcher developed the following references, a single copy of each of which is enclosed: JP to ABC US to DEF JP to GHI US to JKL US to MNO US to PQR All U.S. patents are classified. The searcher searched in classes *** and consulted with an appropriate examiner in the Patent Office to be sure the appropriate classes were searched. Of particular interest are DEF U.S. Patent Publication and GHI Japanese Document DEF is directed to *** There is no discussion in the DEF patent with regard to A*** or B***. The Japanese reference describes a device similar to that of DEF and that also includes both A*** and B***. 5EX 9

20 Exhibit 5-4 Practising Law Institute HOW TO WRITE A PATENT APPLICATION Legal Standard To be patentable, an invention must be useful, novel (i.e., new), and non-obvious. Since the utility of your invention would not be disputed, the main issues are novelty and non-obviousness. The non-obviousness requirement is set forth in 35 U.S.C. 103, which states in part: A patent may not be obtained... 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. The U.S. Patent Office recently provided guidelines to the examiners with regard to how to apply the obviousness test. Those guidelines state: (A) The claimed invention combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) The claimed invention simply substitutes one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) The claimed invention uses a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) The claimed invention applies a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) The claimed invention is Obvious to try i.e., it chooses from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces, if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) There is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Analysis No single reference teaches all the elements of your invention, and therefore it is novel. 5EX 10

21 The Patentability Search Exhibit 5-4 With regard to the nonobvious standard, it is likely an examiner in the Patent Office will take the position that it would be obvious to modify the DEF device by incorporating A and B as taught by the Japanese reference. In view of this, we believe it will be difficult to obtain patent protection. Conclusion For the reasons detailed above, we conclude your invention as we understand it is most likely not patentable. However, there may be features of your invention we did not adequately appreciate, or there may be reasons why one of skill in the art would not combine DEF and GHI. If that is the situation, please contact us so we can reconsider our opinion. In considering the results of the search, please review the notice I provided regarding limitations of patentability searches. We did not consider infringement of any of the patents developed by the search. If you would like me to do so, please contact me. If you wish to proceed with a patent application or have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely yours, Jeffrey G. Sheldon 5EX 11

22

23 Exhibit 5-5 Letter Reporting Patentability Study Results (Neutral) Re: Patentability Search re Our File No. Dear : In accordance with your request, we had a patentabilty study conducted for the above-identified invention. For the reasons detailed below, we conclude the invention is novel. However, in view of the Patent Office s current position regarding patentability, we estimate there is 50/50 chance of being able to persuade the Patent Office that the invention is unobvious. The Search The search was directed to a device that.... With reference to the enclosed figure, the device 10 comprises a.... Search Result Our searcher developed the following references, a single copy of each of which is enclosed:... Of particular interest is Smith, U.S. Patent No.... and Japanese Document.... Smith is directed to.... The Japanese reference.... Legal Standard To be patentable, a device must be useful, novel (i.e., new), and nonobvious. Since the utility of your invention would not be disputed, the main issues are novelty and non-obviousness. The non-obviousness requirement is set forth in 35 U.S.C. 103, which states in pertinent part: A patent may not be obtained... 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 5EX 13

24 Exhibit 5-5 Practising Law Institute HOW TO WRITE A PATENT APPLICATION to which said subject matter pertains. The U.S. Patent Office recently provided guidelines to the examiners with regard to how to apply the obviousness test. Those guidelines state: (A) The claimed invention combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) The claimed invention simply substitutes one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) The claimed invention uses a known technique to improve similar devices (or methods, or products) in the same way; (D) The claimed invention applies a known technique to a known device (or method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) The claimed invention is Obvious to try i.e., it chooses from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces, if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; or (G) There is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Analysis No single reference teaches all the elements of your invention, and therefore it is novel. With regard to the nonobvious standard, there is a possibility an examiner in the Patent Office could take the position that it would be obvious to modify the Smith device by incorporating... into the device as taught by the Japanese reference. A contrary argument would be there would be absolutely no use for such... in the Smith device and.... Presently only about 50% of patent applications are being allowed. It is our opinion that this invention fits right in the middle. An examiner could combine the references to conclude the invention as obvious. However, we have at least the counter argument I presented above. 5EX 14

25 The Patentability Search Exhibit 5-5 Conclusion For the reasons detailed above, we conclude there is about a 50% chance of obtaining patent protection on your invention. If you asked me the chances three years ago, I would have stated the chances were about 70%. However, the Patent Office recently has made it more difficult to obtain a patent. Please consider the enclosed notice regarding limitations of patentability/novelty searches. If you wish to proceed with a patent application or have any questions, please contact me. Enclosures Sincerely yours, 5EX 15

26

Introduction, When to File and Where to Prepare the Application

Introduction, When to File and Where to Prepare the Application Chapter 1 Introduction, When to File and Where to Prepare the Application 1:1 Need for This Book 1:2 How to Use This Book 1:3 Organization of This Book 1:4 Terminology Used in This Book 1:5 How Quickly

More information

OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW Since 1957 500 MEMORIAL ST. POST OFFICE BOX 2049 DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27702-2049 (919) 683-5514 GENERAL RULES PERTAINING TO PATENT INFRINGEMENT Patent infringement

More information

Duh! Finding the Obvious in a Patent Application

Duh! Finding the Obvious in a Patent Application Duh! Finding the Obvious in a Patent Application By: Tom Bakos, FSA, MAAA Co-Editor, Insurance IP Bulletin Patents may be granted in the U.S. for inventions that are new and useful. The term new means

More information

Novelty. Japan Patent Office

Novelty. Japan Patent Office Novelty Japan Patent Office Outline I. Purpose of Novelty II. Procedure of Determining Novelty III. Non-prejudicial Disclosures or Exceptions to Lack of Novelty 1 Outline I. Purpose of Novelty II. Procedure

More information

2010 KSR Guidelines Update, 75 FR (September 1, 2010) Updated PTO guidelines on obviousness determinations in a post KSR World

2010 KSR Guidelines Update, 75 FR (September 1, 2010) Updated PTO guidelines on obviousness determinations in a post KSR World 2010 KSR Guidelines Update, 75 FR 54643-60 (September 1, 2010) Updated PTO guidelines on obviousness determinations in a post KSR World ROY D. GROSS Associate St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens LLC Stamford,

More information

S A M P L E Q U E S T I O N S April 2002

S A M P L E Q U E S T I O N S April 2002 P A T E N T L A W L A W 6 7 7 P R O F E S S O R W A G N E R S P R I N G 2 0 0 2 April 2002 These five multiple choice questions (based on a fact pattern used in the Spring 2001 Patent Law Final Exam) are

More information

Designing Around Valid U.S. Patents Course Syllabus

Designing Around Valid U.S. Patents Course Syllabus Chapter 1: COOKBOOK PROCEDURE AND BLUEPRINT FOR DESIGNING AROUND : AVOIDING LITERAL INFRINGEMENT Literal Infringement Generally Claim Construction Under Markman 1. Claim Interpretation Before Markman 2.

More information

KSR International Co., v. Teleflex Inc. U.S. Supreme Court, April 2007

KSR International Co., v. Teleflex Inc. U.S. Supreme Court, April 2007 KSR International Co., v. Teleflex Inc. U.S. Supreme Court, April 2007 Abraham J. Rosner Sughrue Mion, PLLC INTRODUCTION In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007), the Supreme Court

More information

Utilization of Prior Art Evidence on TK: Opportunities and Possibilities in the International Patent System

Utilization of Prior Art Evidence on TK: Opportunities and Possibilities in the International Patent System Utilization of Prior Art Evidence on TK: Opportunities and Possibilities in the International Patent System New Delhi, India March 23 2011 Begoña Venero Aguirre Head, Genetic Resources and Traditional

More information

Information and Guidelines Concerning the Patent and Copyright Process at East Tennessee State University

Information and Guidelines Concerning the Patent and Copyright Process at East Tennessee State University Information and Guidelines Concerning the Patent and Copyright Process at East Tennessee State University I. Steps in the Process of Declaration of Your Invention or Creation. A. It is the policy of East

More information

PATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO

PATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO PATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO Robert W. Bahr Acting Associate Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy United States Patent and Trademark Office 11/17/2016 1 The U.S. patent system

More information

INFORMATION FOR INVENTORS SEEKING PATENT PROTECTION

INFORMATION FOR INVENTORS SEEKING PATENT PROTECTION INFORMATION FOR INVENTORS SEEKING PATENT PROTECTION WHAT IS A PATENT? A patent is a legal instrument which enables its owner to exclude others from practising an invention for a limited period of time.

More information

Examination Guidelines for Patentability - Novelty and Inventive Step. Shunsuke YAMAMOTO Examination Standards Office Japan Patent Office 2016.

Examination Guidelines for Patentability - Novelty and Inventive Step. Shunsuke YAMAMOTO Examination Standards Office Japan Patent Office 2016. Examination Guidelines for Patentability - Novelty and Inventive Step Shunsuke YAMAMOTO Examination Standards Office Japan Patent Office 2016.09 1 Outline 1. Flowchart of Determining Novelty and Inventive

More information

Five Winning Strategies for Crafting Claims in U.S. Patent Applications

Five Winning Strategies for Crafting Claims in U.S. Patent Applications Page 1 Five Winning Strategies for Crafting Claims in U.S. Patent Applications, is a registered patent attorney and chair of the Intellectual Property and Technology Practice Group at Bond, Schoeneck &

More information

Patent Exam Fall 2015

Patent Exam Fall 2015 Exam No. This examination consists of five short answer questions 2 hours ******** Computer users: Please use the Exam4 software in take-home mode. Answers may alternatively be hand-written. Instructions:

More information

Inventive Step. Japan Patent Office

Inventive Step. Japan Patent Office Inventive Step Japan Patent Office Outline I. Overview of Inventive Step II. Procedure of Evaluating Inventive Step III. Examination Guidelines in JPO 1 Outline I. Overview of Inventive Step II. Procedure

More information

Procedure of Determining Novelty and Inventive Step

Procedure of Determining Novelty and Inventive Step Note: When any ambiguity of interpretation is found in this provisional translation, the Japanese text shall prevail. Part III Chapter 2 Section 3 Procedure of Determining Novelty and Inventive Step Section

More information

Can I Challenge My Competitor s Patent?

Can I Challenge My Competitor s Patent? Check out Derek Fahey's new firm's website! CLICK HERE Can I Challenge My Competitor s Patent? Yes, you can challenge a patent or patent publication. Before challenging a patent or patent publication,

More information

10 Strategic Drafting of Applications for U.S. Patents by Japanese Companies from an Enforcement Perspective

10 Strategic Drafting of Applications for U.S. Patents by Japanese Companies from an Enforcement Perspective 10 Strategic Drafting of Applications for U.S. Patents by Japanese Companies from an Enforcement Perspective It has become more and more important for Japanese companies to obtain patents in Europe and

More information

Patentable Inventions Versus Unpatentable: How to Assess and Decide

Patentable Inventions Versus Unpatentable: How to Assess and Decide Page 1 Patentable Inventions Versus Unpatentable: How to Assess and Decide, is biotechnology patent counsel in the Patent Department at the University of Virginia Patent Foundation in Charlottesville,

More information

patents grant only the right to stop others from making, using and selling the invention

patents grant only the right to stop others from making, using and selling the invention 1 I. What is a Patent? A patent is a limited right granted by a government (all patents are limited by country) that allows the inventor to stop other people or companies from making, using or selling

More information

AIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Lessons Learned from PTAB and Federal Circuit Decisions

AIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Lessons Learned from PTAB and Federal Circuit Decisions AIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Lessons Learned from PTAB and Federal Circuit Decisions Christopher Persaud, J.D., M.B.A. Patent Agent/Consultant Patent Possibilities Tyler McAllister, J.D. Attorney at Law

More information

PATENT PROSECUTION STRATEGIES IN AN AIA WORLD: SUCCEEDING WITH THE CHANGES

PATENT PROSECUTION STRATEGIES IN AN AIA WORLD: SUCCEEDING WITH THE CHANGES PATENT PROSECUTION STRATEGIES IN AN AIA WORLD: SUCCEEDING WITH THE CHANGES BY: Juan Carlos A. Marquez Stites & Harbison PLLC 1 OVERVIEW I. Summary Overview of AIA Provisions II. Portfolio Building Side

More information

SPECIAL REPORT May 2018 SURPREME COURT FINDS USPTO S ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT TRIALS CONSTITUTIONAL AND SETS GROUND RULES FOR THEIR CONDUCT BY THE PTAB

SPECIAL REPORT May 2018 SURPREME COURT FINDS USPTO S ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT TRIALS CONSTITUTIONAL AND SETS GROUND RULES FOR THEIR CONDUCT BY THE PTAB SPECIAL REPORT May 2018 Spring 2017 SURPREME COURT FINDS USPTO S ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT TRIALS CONSTITUTIONAL AND SETS GROUND RULES FOR THEIR CONDUCT BY THE PTAB On April 24, 2018, the United State Supreme

More information

WHAT IS A PATENT AND WHAT DOES IT PROTECT?

WHAT IS A PATENT AND WHAT DOES IT PROTECT? WHAT IS A PATENT AND WHAT DOES IT PROTECT? A patent is a monopoly granted by the government for an invention that works or functions differently from other inventions. It is necessary for the invention

More information

Working Guidelines Q217. The patentability criteria for inventive step / non-obviousness

Working Guidelines Q217. The patentability criteria for inventive step / non-obviousness Working Guidelines by Thierry CALAME, Reporter General Nicola DAGG and Sarah MATHESON, Deputy Reporters General John OSHA, Kazuhiko YOSHIDA and Sara ULFSDOTTER Assistants to the Reporter General Q217 The

More information

TEN TIPS FOR MAXIMIZING PROVISIONAL RIGHTS PROTECTION

TEN TIPS FOR MAXIMIZING PROVISIONAL RIGHTS PROTECTION TEN TIPS FOR MAXIMIZING PROVISIONAL RIGHTS PROTECTION Julie R. Daulton Merchant & Gould P.C. Minneapolis, Minnesota How many of us have changed the way we draft claims when filing a patent application

More information

Patents. What is a Patent? 11/16/2017. The Decision Between Patent and Trade Secret Protection

Patents. What is a Patent? 11/16/2017. The Decision Between Patent and Trade Secret Protection The Decision Between Patent and Trade Secret Protection November 2017 John J. O Malley Ryan W. O Donnell vklaw.com 1 Patents vklaw.com 2 What is a Patent? A right to exclude others from making, using,

More information

BASICS OF PATENTS By Howard Cohn Registered Patent Attorney

BASICS OF PATENTS By Howard Cohn Registered Patent Attorney BASICS OF PATENTS By Howard Cohn Registered Patent Attorney Our legal system provides certain rights and protections for owners of property. The kind of property that results from the fruits of mental

More information

Overview of the Patenting Process

Overview of the Patenting Process Overview of the Patenting Process WILLIAMS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 9200 W Cross Dr Ste 202 Littleton, CO 80123 o. (720) 328-5343 f. (720) 328-5297 www.wip.net info@wip.net What is a Patent? A patent is an

More information

COMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT TRILATERAL PROJECT 12.4 INVENTIVE STEP - 1 -

COMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT TRILATERAL PROJECT 12.4 INVENTIVE STEP - 1 - COMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT ON TRILATERAL PROJECT 12.4 INVENTIVE STEP - 1 - CONTENTS PAGE COMPARISON OUTLINE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS I. Determining inventive step 1 1 A. Judicial, legislative or administrative

More information

Winning a Non-Obviousness Case at the Board

Winning a Non-Obviousness Case at the Board Winning a Non-Obviousness Case at the Board Michael Messinger Director, Electrical and Clean Tech April 22, 2010 Obvious Not Obvious 2 Ratcheting Up a Non-Obviousness Position Attack with Argument Only

More information

Patent Prosecution in View of The America Invents Act. Overview

Patent Prosecution in View of The America Invents Act. Overview Patent Prosecution in View of The America Invents Act Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff David Dutcher Paul S. Hunter 2 Overview First-To-File (new 35 U.S.C. 102) Derivation Proceedings New Proceedings For Patent

More information

WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN YOU RE EXPECTING A PATENT By R. Devin Ricci 1

WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN YOU RE EXPECTING A PATENT By R. Devin Ricci 1 WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN YOU RE EXPECTING A PATENT By R. Devin Ricci 1 The general outlay of this guide is to present some of the who, what, where, when, and why of the patent system in order to be able to

More information

Accelerated Examination. Presented by Hans Troesch, Principal Fish & Richardson P.C. March 2, 2010

Accelerated Examination. Presented by Hans Troesch, Principal Fish & Richardson P.C. March 2, 2010 Accelerated Examination Presented by Hans Troesch, Principal Fish & Richardson P.C. March 2, 2010 Overview The Basics Petition for accelerated examination Pre-examination search Examination Support Document

More information

Patent Law. Prof. Roger Ford October 19, 2016 Class 13 Nonobviousness: Scope and Content of the Prior Art. Recap

Patent Law. Prof. Roger Ford October 19, 2016 Class 13 Nonobviousness: Scope and Content of the Prior Art. Recap Patent Law Prof. Roger Ford October 19, 2016 Class 13 Nonobviousness: Scope and Content of the Prior Art Recap Recap Obviousness after KSR Objective indicia of nonobviousness Today s agenda Today s agenda

More information

PATENT REFORM. Did Patent Reform Level the Playing Field for Foreign Entities? 1 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No.

PATENT REFORM. Did Patent Reform Level the Playing Field for Foreign Entities? 1 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 82 PTCJ 789, 10/07/2011. Copyright 2011 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com PATENT REFORM

More information

Patent Prosecution. A. For a determination of obviousness of the subject matter under 35 U.S.C

Patent Prosecution. A. For a determination of obviousness of the subject matter under 35 U.S.C Patent Prosecution Decisions Relating to Obviousness Reiections Under 35 U.S.C. 61 03(a) 1) Graham v. John Deere (148 USPQ 459) A. For a determination of obviousness of the subject matter under 35 U.S.C

More information

How patents work An introduction for law students

How patents work An introduction for law students How patents work An introduction for law students 1 Learning goals The learning goals of this lecture are to understand: the different types of intellectual property rights available the role of the patent

More information

4/29/2015. Conditions for Patentability. Conditions: Utility. Juicy Whip v. Orange Bang. Conditions: Subject Matter. Subject Matter: Abstract Ideas

4/29/2015. Conditions for Patentability. Conditions: Utility. Juicy Whip v. Orange Bang. Conditions: Subject Matter. Subject Matter: Abstract Ideas Conditions for Patentability Obtaining a Patent: Conditions for Patentability CSE490T/590T Several distinct inquiries: Is my invention useful does it have utility? Is my invention patent eligible subject

More information

New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by

New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by Tom Irving Copyright Finnegan 2013 May 14, 2013 Disclaimer These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes

More information

Intellectual Property. EMBL Summer Institute 2010 Dusty Gwinn WVURC

Intellectual Property. EMBL Summer Institute 2010 Dusty Gwinn WVURC Intellectual Property EMBL Summer Institute 2010 Dusty Gwinn WVURC Presentation Outline Intellectual Property Patents Trademarks Copyright Trade Secrets Technology Transfer Tech Marketing Tech Assessment

More information

Chapter 1900 Protest Protest Under 37 CFR [R ] How Protest Is Submitted

Chapter 1900 Protest Protest Under 37 CFR [R ] How Protest Is Submitted Chapter 1900 Protest 1901 Protest Under 37 CFR 1.291 1901.01 Who Can Protest 1901.02 Information Which Can Be Relied on in Protest 1901.03 How Protest Is Submitted 1901.04 When Should the Protest Be Submitted

More information

Patent Prosecution. Decisions Relating to Obviousness Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103

Patent Prosecution. Decisions Relating to Obviousness Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103 Patent Prosecution Decisions Relating to Obviousness Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103 1) Graham v. John Deere (148 USPQ 459) A. For a determination of obviousness of the subject matter under 35 U.S.C 103,

More information

International Prosecution Strategy after Therasense: What You Need to Know Now

International Prosecution Strategy after Therasense: What You Need to Know Now International Prosecution Strategy after Therasense: What You Need to Know Now Shawn Gorman and Christopher Swickhamer, Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. I. Introduction The Plague of Inequitable Conduct Allegations

More information

The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings

The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings Question Q229 National Group: United States Title: The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings Contributors: ADAMO, Kenneth R. ARROYO, Blas ASHER, Robert BAIN, Joseph MEUNIER, Andrew

More information

Note: When any ambiguity of interpretation is found in this provisional translation, the Japanese text shall prevail. Part III Patentability

Note: When any ambiguity of interpretation is found in this provisional translation, the Japanese text shall prevail. Part III Patentability Note: When any ambiguity of interpretation is found in this provisional translation, the Japanese text shall prevail. Part III Patent Act (Requirements for ) Article 29(1) Any person

More information

ROSE-HULMAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY POLICY REGARDING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

ROSE-HULMAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY POLICY REGARDING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ROSE-HULMAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY POLICY REGARDING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (Adopted by the Board of Managers on February 24, 1989 now referred to as Board of Trustees) The primary mission of Rose-Hulman

More information

KSR INTERNATIONAL CO. v. TELEFLEX INC.: Analysis and Potential Impact for Patentees

KSR INTERNATIONAL CO. v. TELEFLEX INC.: Analysis and Potential Impact for Patentees KSR INTERNATIONAL CO. v. TELEFLEX INC.: Analysis and Potential Impact for Patentees Keith D. Lindenbaum, J.D. Partner, Mechanical & Electromechanical Technologies Practice and International Business Industry

More information

PA Advisors, LLC v. Google Inc. et al Doc. 479 Att. 2 EXHIBIT B. Dockets.Justia.com

PA Advisors, LLC v. Google Inc. et al Doc. 479 Att. 2 EXHIBIT B. Dockets.Justia.com PA Advisors, LLC v. Google Inc. et al Doc. 479 Att. 2 EXHIBIT B Dockets.Justia.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PA ADVISORS, L.L.C., Plaintiff, Civil Action

More information

PATENT, TRADEMARK & COPYRIGHT!

PATENT, TRADEMARK & COPYRIGHT! A BNA s PATENT, TRADEMARK & COPYRIGHT! JOURNAL Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 81 PTCJ 36, 11/05/2010. Copyright 2010 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.

More information

The patentability criteria for inventive step I nonobviousness. The Groups are invited to answer the following questions under their national laws:

The patentability criteria for inventive step I nonobviousness. The Groups are invited to answer the following questions under their national laws: Question Q217 National Group: United States Title: The patentability criteria for inventive step I nonobviousness Contributors: Marc V. Richards Chair Alan Kasper Drew Meunier Joshua Goldberg Dan Altman

More information

Bangkok, August 22 to 26, 2016 (face-to-face session) August 29 to October 30, 2016 (follow-up session)

Bangkok, August 22 to 26, 2016 (face-to-face session) August 29 to October 30, 2016 (follow-up session) WIPO National Patent Drafting Course organized by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in cooperation with the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP), Ministry of Commerce of Thailand

More information

Preparing A Patent Application

Preparing A Patent Application Preparing A Patent Application Henry Estévez, Ph.D. Registered Patent Attorney Allen, Dyer, Doppelt, Milbrath & Gilchrist, P.A. Orlando, Melbourne, and Jacksonville, Florida Is The Invention Patentable?

More information

America Invents Act (AIA) The Patent Reform Law of 2011 Initial Summary

America Invents Act (AIA) The Patent Reform Law of 2011 Initial Summary PRESENTATION TITLE America Invents Act (AIA) The Patent Reform Law of 2011 Initial Summary Christopher M. Durkee James L. Ewing, IV September 22, 2011 1 Major Aspects of Act Adoption of a first-to-file

More information

Examiners Report on Paper DII Examiners Report - Paper D Part II

Examiners Report on Paper DII Examiners Report - Paper D Part II Examiners Report on Paper DII Examiners Report - Paper D Part II In the first part of this paper, candidates had to deal with different inventions made by Electra Optic and its new subsidiary, Oedipus

More information

PATENT LAW. Randy Canis. Patent Searching

PATENT LAW. Randy Canis. Patent Searching PATENT LAW Randy Canis CLASS 4 Statutory Bar; Patent Searching 1 Statutory Bars (Chapter 5) Statutory Bars 102. Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent A person shall be entitled

More information

Case 1:08-cv LPS Document 601 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 57 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 1:08-cv LPS Document 601 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 57 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE Case 1:08-cv-00862-LPS Document 601 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 57 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE LEADER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff-Counterdefendant,

More information

Section 2. Obtaining a Patent: The Four Basic Steps. Chapter 10. Step Three: Estimate Application Costs

Section 2. Obtaining a Patent: The Four Basic Steps. Chapter 10. Step Three: Estimate Application Costs Bold Ideas: The Inventor s Guide to Patents 39 Section 2 Obtaining a Patent: The Four Basic Steps Chapter 10 Step Three: Estimate Application Costs How much does it cost to file a patent? Such a simple

More information

GLOSSARY OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TERMS

GLOSSARY OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TERMS 450-177 360 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02115 Tel 617 373 8810 Fax 617 373 8866 cri@northeastern.edu GLOSSARY OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TERMS Abstract - a brief (150 word or less) summary of a patent,

More information

Paper Entered: April 21, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: April 21, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571-272-7822 Entered: April 21, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD KASPERSKY LAB, INC., Petitioner, v. UNILOC USA, INC. and

More information

When Is An Invention. Nevertheless Nonobvious?

When Is An Invention. Nevertheless Nonobvious? When Is An Invention That Was Obvious To Try Nevertheless Nonobvious? This article was originally published in Volume 23, Number 3 (March 2014) of The Federal Circuit Bar Journal by the Federal Circuit

More information

GLOSSARY of patent related terms in the FOUR OFFICE STATISTICS REPORT 2010 EDITION

GLOSSARY of patent related terms in the FOUR OFFICE STATISTICS REPORT 2010 EDITION GLOSSARY of patent related terms in the FOUR OFFICE STATISTICS RRT 2010 EDITION Disclaimer: The explanations in this glossary are given in order to help readers of the Four Office Statistics Report in

More information

COMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT INVENTIVE STEP (JPO - KIPO - SIPO)

COMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT INVENTIVE STEP (JPO - KIPO - SIPO) COMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT ON INVENTIVE STEP (JPO - KIPO - SIPO) CONTENTS PAGE COMPARISON OUTLINE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS I. Determining inventive step 1 1 A. Judicial, legislative or administrative criteria

More information

The European Patent Office An overview on the procedures before the EPO: up to grant, opposition and appeal

The European Patent Office An overview on the procedures before the EPO: up to grant, opposition and appeal The European Patent Office An overview on the procedures before the EPO: up to grant, opposition and appeal Yon de Acha European Patent Academy Bilbao, 07.10.2010 25/10/2010 Contents Patents Grant Procedure

More information

Enhancement of Attraction of Utility Model System

Enhancement of Attraction of Utility Model System Enhancement of Attraction of Utility Model System January 2004 Patent System Subcommittee, Intellectual Property Policy Committee Industrial Structure Council Chapter 1 Desirable utility model system...

More information

AZERBAIJAN Law on Patent Date of Text (Enacted): July 25, 1997 ENTRY INTO FORCE: August 2, 1997

AZERBAIJAN Law on Patent Date of Text (Enacted): July 25, 1997 ENTRY INTO FORCE: August 2, 1997 AZERBAIJAN Law on Patent Date of Text (Enacted): July 25, 1997 ENTRY INTO FORCE: August 2, 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I General Provisions Article 1 Basic notions Article 2 Legislation of the Republic

More information

America Invents Act: Patent Reform

America Invents Act: Patent Reform America Invents Act: Patent Reform Gunnar Leinberg, Nicholas Gallo, and Gerald F. Gibbs, Jr. LeClairRyan January 4 th 2012 gunnar.leinberg@leclairryan.com; nicholas.gallo@leclaairryan.com; and gerald.gibbs@leclairryan.com

More information

Presented to The Ohio State Bar Association. May 23, 2012

Presented to The Ohio State Bar Association. May 23, 2012 Your Guide to the America Invents Act (AIA) Presented to The Ohio State Bar Association May 23, 2012 Overview A. Most comprehensive change to U.S. patent law in over 60 years; signed into law Sept. 16,

More information

America Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings

America Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings America Invents Act (AIA) Post-Grant Proceedings Various Post-Grant Proceedings under AIA Ex parte reexamination Modified by AIA Sec. 6(h)(2) Continue to be available under AIA Inter partes reexamination

More information

April 30, Dear Acting Under Secretary Rea:

April 30, Dear Acting Under Secretary Rea: The Honorable Teresa S. Rea Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Mail Stop OPEA P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA

More information

Accelerating the Acquisition of an Enforceable Patent: Bypassing the USPTO s Backlog Lawrence A. Stahl and Seth E. Boeshore

Accelerating the Acquisition of an Enforceable Patent: Bypassing the USPTO s Backlog Lawrence A. Stahl and Seth E. Boeshore Accelerating the Acquisition of an Enforceable Patent: Bypassing the USPTO s Backlog Lawrence A. Stahl and Seth E. Boeshore The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) dockets new patent applications

More information

196:163. Executive summary for clients regarding US patent law and practice. Client Executive Summary on U.S. Patent Law and Practice

196:163. Executive summary for clients regarding US patent law and practice. Client Executive Summary on U.S. Patent Law and Practice THIS DOCUMENT WAS ORIGINALLY PREPARED BY ALAN S. GUTTERMAN AND IS REPRINTED FROM BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS SOLUTIONS ON WESTLAW, AN ONLINE DATABASE MAINTAINED BY THOMSON REUTERS (SUBSCRIPTION REQUIRED) THOMSON

More information

America Invents Act H.R (Became Law: September 16, 2011) Michael K. Mutter Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch October 11-12, 2011

America Invents Act H.R (Became Law: September 16, 2011) Michael K. Mutter Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch   October 11-12, 2011 America Invents Act H.R. 1249 (Became Law: September 16, 2011) Michael K. Mutter Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch www.bskb.com October 11-12, 2011 H.R. 1249 became law Sept. 16, 2011 - Overview first inventor

More information

Attachment: Opinions on the Draft Amendment of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law of the People s Republic of China

Attachment: Opinions on the Draft Amendment of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law of the People s Republic of China March 31, 2009 To: Legislative Affairs Office State Council People s Republic of China Hirohiko Usui President Japan Intellectual Property Association Opinions on the Draft Amendment of the Implementing

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE. Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE. Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE Event Service of Complaint Scheduled Time Total Time After Complaint Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks Initial

More information

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER CHAPTER ELEVEN OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT AND THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES (1976)

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER CHAPTER ELEVEN OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT AND THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES (1976) IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER CHAPTER ELEVEN OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT AND THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES (1976) BETWEEN: ELI LILLY AND COMPANY Claimant/Investor AND: GOVERNMENT

More information

EFFECTS OF KSR ON PATENT PRACTICE

EFFECTS OF KSR ON PATENT PRACTICE EFFECTS OF KSR ON PATENT PRACTICE FOR: PIUG (New Brunswick, NJ, October 9, 2007) RICHARD NEIFELD, Ph.D., PATENT ATTORNEY NEIFELD IP LAW, PC - www.neifeld.com EMAIL: rneifeld@neifeld.com 4813-B EISENHOWER

More information

Lessons From IPRs Involving Agriculture-Related Patents

Lessons From IPRs Involving Agriculture-Related Patents Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Lessons From IPRs Involving Agriculture-Related

More information

Client Privilege in Intellectual Property Advice

Client Privilege in Intellectual Property Advice Client Privilege in Intellectual Property Advice Prepared by the Commission on Intellectual Property I The WIPO/AIPPI Conference on 22-23 May 2008 1. Client privilege in intellectual property advice was

More information

AIPPI FORUM Berlin. September 25, Session V: Does the EPO grant trivial patents? Should the level of inventive step be increased?

AIPPI FORUM Berlin. September 25, Session V: Does the EPO grant trivial patents? Should the level of inventive step be increased? AIPPI FORUM Berlin September 25, 2005 Session V: Does the EPO grant trivial patents? Should the level of inventive step be increased? ERWIN J. BASINSKI BASINSKI & ASSOCIATES 113 SAN NICOLAS AVENUE SANTA

More information

Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer 2012 FLC Annual Meeting Advanced Patent Training Workshop

Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer 2012 FLC Annual Meeting Advanced Patent Training Workshop ~ Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer 2012 FLC Annual Meeting Advanced Patent Training Workshop First-Inventor-to-File : A Patent Management Regime to Deal with the Practical Realities

More information

Successfully Defending Patents In Inter Partes Reexamination And Inter Partes Review Proceedings Before the USPTO. Matthew A. Smith 1 Sept.

Successfully Defending Patents In Inter Partes Reexamination And Inter Partes Review Proceedings Before the USPTO. Matthew A. Smith 1 Sept. Successfully Defending Patents In Inter Partes Reexamination And Inter Partes Review Proceedings Before the USPTO Matthew A. Smith 1 Sept. 15, 2012 USPTO inter partes proceedings are not healthy for patents.

More information

CUSTOMER CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS A-160 HUMMINGBIRD CUSTOMER CONTRACT N

CUSTOMER CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS A-160 HUMMINGBIRD CUSTOMER CONTRACT N Page 1 of 5 CUSTOMER CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS A-160 HUMMINGBIRD CUSTOMER CONTRACT N00421-03-9-0001 (a) Patent Rights Note: The provisions of Patent Rights have been modified from the Prime Agreement to suitably

More information

WSPLA (Wash. State Patent Law Assoc.) Lunch Seminar

WSPLA (Wash. State Patent Law Assoc.) Lunch Seminar WSPLA (Wash. State Patent Law Assoc.) Lunch Seminar Date: March 15, 2017 12:00-1:30~2:00 Place: Seattle, WA (Washington Athletic Club 1325 6 th Ave. Seattle 98101) 1 Dos and Don ts of US Inbound & Outbound

More information

Basic Patent Information from the USPTO (Redacted) November 15, 2007

Basic Patent Information from the USPTO (Redacted) November 15, 2007 Basic Patent Information from the USPTO (Redacted) November 15, 2007 What Is a Patent? A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor, issued by the United States Patent and

More information

Case5:11-cv LHK Document1901 Filed08/21/12 Page1 of 109

Case5:11-cv LHK Document1901 Filed08/21/12 Page1 of 109 Case:-cv-0-LHK Document0 Filed0// Page of 0 0 APPLE, INC., a California corporation, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff and Counterdefendant, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS

More information

Patent Damages Post Festo

Patent Damages Post Festo Page 1 of 6 Patent Damages Post Festo Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Law360, New

More information

Writing Strong Patent Applications in China. Andy Booth Head of Patents Dyson Technology Limited

Writing Strong Patent Applications in China. Andy Booth Head of Patents Dyson Technology Limited Writing Strong Patent Applications in China Andy Booth Head of Patents Dyson Technology Limited My role Secure and maintain intellectual property rights for the IP created within the Dyson business Since

More information

THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN

THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN June 20, 2002 On May 28, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its longawaited decision in Festo Corporation v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 1 vacating the landmark

More information

MBHB snippets Alert October 13, 2011

MBHB snippets Alert October 13, 2011 Patent Reform: First-Inventor-to-File to Replace the Current First-to-Invent System By Kevin E. Noonan, Ph.D. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 ( AIA ) was signed into law by President Obama

More information

Patent Cooperation Treaty

Patent Cooperation Treaty Patent Cooperation Treaty Done at Washington on June 19, 1970, amended on September 28, 1979, modified on February 3, 1984, and October 3, 2001 (as in force from April 1, 2002) NTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS Article

More information

THE IMPORTANCE OF TRADE SECRET PROTECTION

THE IMPORTANCE OF TRADE SECRET PROTECTION THE IMPORTANCE OF TRADE SECRET PROTECTION By: Robert H. Thornburg In the field of Intellectual Property, the law of trade secrets often takes a back seat to patent law. However, trade secret protection

More information

Patent litigation. Block 1. Module Priority. Essentials: Priority. Introduction

Patent litigation. Block 1. Module Priority. Essentials: Priority. Introduction Patent litigation. Block 1. Module Priority Introduction Due to the globalisation of markets and the increase of inter-state trade, by the end of the nineteenth century there was a growing need for internationally

More information

AIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP

AIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP AIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, 2012 A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome

More information

PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT)

PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT) E PCT/GL/ISPE/6 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: June 6, 2017 PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT) PCT INTERNATIONAL SEARCH AND PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION GUIDELINES (Guidelines for the Processing by International Searching

More information

Invention Disclosures and the Role of Inventors

Invention Disclosures and the Role of Inventors Invention Disclosures and the Role of Inventors DAVID R. MCGEE, Executive Director, Technology & Industry Alliances, University of California, Davis, U.S.A. ABSTRACT This chapter is intended to assist

More information

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.: Patentability Clarity or Confusion?

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.: Patentability Clarity or Confusion? Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Volume 6 Issue 2 Spring Article 4 Spring 2008 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.: Patentability Clarity or Confusion? Recommended Citation,

More information

The Comment: The Impact of Major Changes by the Federal Circuit in the Law Affecting Claim Scope

The Comment: The Impact of Major Changes by the Federal Circuit in the Law Affecting Claim Scope Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 54 Issue 3 2004 The Comment: The Impact of Major Changes by the Federal Circuit in the Law Affecting Claim Scope Gerald Sobel Follow this and additional works at:

More information

Performing a Preliminary Assessment of Patentability for a New Invention: Guidelines For Non-Patent Lawyers

Performing a Preliminary Assessment of Patentability for a New Invention: Guidelines For Non-Patent Lawyers International In-house Counsel Journal Vol. 2, No. 5, Autumn 2008, 816 827 Performing a Preliminary Assessment of Patentability for a New Invention: Guidelines For Non-Patent Lawyers RODNEY L. SPARKS,

More information