Patent Law Practice Center

Patent Office Releases Interim Bilski Guidelines

Written by Gene Quinn (of IPWatchdog.com and Patent Center Contributor)

This morning the United States Patent and Trademark Office published Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos. The Interim Bilski Guidance is effective July 27, 2010, and applies to all applications filed before, on or after the effective date. Most noteworthy is that the Patent Office is encouraging examiners to issue 101 rejection in only “extreme cases” and allow patentability to be decided by sections 102, 103 and 112.

These interim guidelines build upon the memo sent to the examining corps the day the Supreme Court issued its decision in Bilski v. Kappos, and is intended for use by Office personnel when determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. According to the Federal Register Notice, this guidance supersedes previous guidance on subject matter eligibility that conflicts with the Interim Bilski Guidance.

Significantly, the guidelines explain:

Therefore, examiners should avoid focusing on issues of patent eligibility under Sec. 101 to the detriment of considering an application for compliance with the requirements of Sec. Sec. 102, 103, and 112, and should avoid treating an application solely on the basis of patent eligibility under Sec. 101 except in the most extreme cases.

This should be music to the ears of the patent bar and applicants who were previously stopped dead in their tracks by a seemingly insurmountable 101 rejection. Read the rest of this entry »

False Marking: An In-House Attorney’s Perspective

I recently had an opportunity to discuss False Marking with Brandon Baum, partner and IP litigator at Mayer Brown LLP, (see “False Marking: A Patent Litigator’s Perspective“)  and Robert Faber, partner and patent prosecutor at Ostrolenk Faber LLP (see “False Marking: A Patent Prosecutor’s Perspective“).   It was interesting to see the varying opinion’s on the issue.  Today, you’ll have a chance to learn what Valerie Calloway’s, in-house counsel at Polymer Group, Inc. and Patent Center Contributor, insight is on the issue of false marking.

When I caught up with Calloway, I asked her the same questions that I posed to both Baum and Faber.  Here is what she had to say…..

Me: Do you think we’ll see companies begin to stop falsely marketing products in response to the suits?

VC: I believe companies will pay closer attention to this issue.

Me:  Do you believe false marking necessarily causes injury?

VC:  In some cases yes and in some cases no. It depends on the situation. Read the rest of this entry »

Reexamination Requests Filed the Week of July 12th

Here is the latest  installment of Reexamination Requests from Scott M. Daniels, of Reeaxamination Alert and Practice Center Contributor…

Notable is a request filed by Medtronic against a patent belonging to Edwards Lifesciences AG for a valve prosthesis.  Also interesting is a request filed by Nalco regarding a Baker Hughes patent – the patent is the subject of an infringement action between the companies that has already featured a preliminary injunction and two trips to the CAFC.

Reexamination requests are typically reported in the Official Gazette approximately three months after filing. Such a delay in reporting requests, particularly for requests that involve copending District Court litigation, is too long. We therefore report new ex parte and inter partes reexamination requests filed electronically the previous week as they appear on the Patent Office PAIR system.  Information on concurrent litigation is also provided, where available.

Some reexamination requests are still filed by paper.  Because of the time required for the Patent Office to review such paper requests before posting on PAIR, our report may come three weeks after filing.  The information available from the Patent Office may be incomplete in a few cases because not all the reexamination request papers have yet been posted on PAIR.  There may also be gaps in the Patent Office docket numbers listed because, for any of various reasons, a reexamination request has been assigned a docket number but is not ready for posting. Read the rest of this entry »

Inequitable Conduct As An Affirmative Defense

Robert Faber, partner at Ostrolenk and Faber LLP and Practice Center Contributor, recently passed along a great article called Prosecution Ethics   he wrote for the upcoming PLI program: Advanced Patent Prosecution Workshop: Claim Drafting and Amendment Writing.  In the article, Faber discusses the Patent and Trademark Office Duty of Disclosure Rules and in partiuclar what types of failure to provide different forms of information to PTO Examiners have been found by Courts to be inequitable conduct.  Faber explains that the duty of candor and good faith is breached when an affirmative misrepresentation of material fact, faliure to disclose material information or submission of false information occurs.  He then discusses particular cases when the Court has found inequitable conduct.

I caught up with Faber and asked him about one particular inequitable conduct allegation that has recently been getting more attention – “Burying” (submitting information material to an Examiner’s examination of a patent application where that submission includes a large quantity of other less relevant material).   Read the rest of this entry »

Lots of Support at Patent Office Three Track Public Meeting

Written by Gene Quinn (of IPWatchdog.com and Practice Center Contributor)

[Tuesday] the United States Patent and Trademark Office held a public meeting on the so-called Three Track examination proposal, with everyone in agreement that the proposal is quite welcome, at least in principle.  On June 4, 2010, the USPTO published a Notice in the Federal Register setting out the preliminary Three Track proposal and setting Tuesday, July 20, 2010 as a date for the public to come to the Alexandria, Virginia campus to let PTO Officials hear their thoughts.  This public meeting proceeds the due date of written comments by a full month, and many of those who spoke explained they would continue to review the proposal and follow up with additional written comments.  For more information on the specifics of the proposal please see USPTO Announces New Examination Rules.

One thing can be said definitively: everyone thinks it is a good idea, no one has issues with accelerating applications (Track 1) or allowing them to remain on course as today (Track 2), but there were numerous concerns raised about applicants slowing applications down (Track 3).  The good news for the PTO, however, is that speaker after speaker highlighted the same or similar concerns, so it does appear as if there are a finite set of manageable considerations for the PTO to address.  In fact, the senior PTO Officials that I spoke with after the public meeting were extremely pleased and quite grateful.  I was told by one senior PTO Official that the points raised were all good and that the PTO intends to take them into consideration and address the concerns, along with whatever written feedback they receive.  What a refreshing change that will be! Read the rest of this entry »