Patent Law Practice Center

Top 5 Patent Law Blog Posts of the Week

Today we continue our weekly installment highlighting the best of the patent blogosphere from the past week. If there are any patent blogs you think should be highlighted by our Top 5, please comment on this post and we’ll check them out.

1) Patently-O: Overlapping Copyright and Patent Rights – This post takes a look at the Oracle v. Google (N.D. Cal. 2012) and how Oracle has argued that Google’s actions constitute both copyright and patent infringement  as the court considers whether Google improperly relied on Java OS code when developing its Android operating system.

2) Patent Docs: Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. v. Sandoz, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2012) – Following the Federal Circuit’s decision in Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. v. Sandoz, Inc., this post provides an explanation of what makes a new chemical compound prima facie obvious, and the differences between obviousness and obviousness-type double patenting for a chemical composition-of-matter invention.

3) IP Watchdog: Patents World-Wide: Deciding Where to Pursue Patent Rights – This post discusses the means through which a company pursue patent protection around the world. The Patent Cooperation Treaty  and popular countries to get patent protection are highlighted, as is the impact of filing international patent applications via these different means. (more…)

Top 5 Patent Law Blog Posts of the Week

Today we continue our weekly installment highlighting the best of the patent blogosphere from the past week. If there are any patent blogs you think should be highlighted by our Top 5, please comment on this post and we’ll check them out.

1) Patently-O: Gene Patent Debate Returns to the Federal Circuit – This post reports on SCOTUS’ recently issued GVR order in Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO and Myriad Genetics (Fed. Cir. 2012). According to the post, “The Federal Circuit has now released a new briefing schedule — asking the parties to file supplemental briefs by June 15, 2012 addressing the issue: What is the applicability of the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo to Myriad’s isolated DNA claims and to method claim 20 of the ’282 patent?”

2) Green Patent Blog: Clean Energy Patent Growth Index Shows Record High for 2011 – This post shares the findings of the Heslin Rothenberg firm’s Clean Energy Patent Growth Index (CEPGI) 2011 Year in Review, highlighting that granted green patents were at an all time high of 2331 for last year, a rise of 450 patents, or 24%, over 2010. (more…)

Top 5 Patent Law Blog Posts of the Week

Today we continue our weekly installment highlighting the best of the patent blogosphere from the past week. If there are any patent blogs you think should be highlighted by our Top 5, please comment on this post and we’ll check them out.

1) CAFC Blog: Every Patent Practitioner’s Nightmare – Prosecution Mistakes That Can’t be Fixed – This post highlights the matter of Landmark Screens, LLC, v. Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, and Thomas D. Kohler, and discusses how the decision provides an example of a set of circumstances that can lead to an unfixable patent prosecution mistake thus resulting in malpractice and loss of a client.

2) IP Watchdog: Earth Day 2012: 5 Green Innovations to Celebrate – In the spirit of Earth Day, this post makes a note of five Green-Tech innovations that relate to recycling technologies, energy conversion and conservation of energy. These Green-Tech innovations were selected as they all recently received U.S. patents. (more…)

Top 5 Patent Blog Posts of the Week

Today we continue our weekly installment highlighting the best of the patent blogosphere from the past week. If there are any patent blogs you think should be highlighted by our Top 5, please comment on this post and we’ll check them out.

1) CAFC Blog: Revisiting Therasense, CAFC Finds That An Inventor’s Subjective Belief That Submission of Documents Was Unnecessary May Not be Sufficient to Avoid a Showing Of Intent to Deceive – This post discusses Aventis Pharma S.A. and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Hospira Inc. and Apotex Inc. and shares how the CAFC  found that the patents were invalid over withheld references, and unenforceable for inequitable conduct.

2) IP Watchdog: Beware Twitter’s New Patent Agreement Scheme – This post highlights and critiques Twitter’s announcement that  later this year it will implement what they are calling the “Innovators Patent Agreement,” which they claim will ensure that patents are only used for defensive purposes.

(more…)

Top 5 Patent Blog Posts of the Week

Today we continue our weekly installment highlighting the best of the patent blogosphere from the past week. If there are any patent blogs you think should be highlighted by our Top 5, please comment on this post and we’ll check them out.

1) IP Watchdog: Federal Circuit on Software Patents: Show Me the Algorithms – This post discusses the decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Noah Systems, Inc. v. Intuit, Inc. and how the CAFC explained  the disclosure requirements for software patents that utilize means-plus-function claim language.

2) Patents Post-Grant: Different Thresholds for New Post Grant Proceedings – This post questions whether or not there is a significant enough difference between Inter Partes Review and Post Grant Review to make an impact between grant rates. But the post does discuss the differentiating thresholds necessary for initiating the process of Inter Partes Review and Post Grant Review.

3) Patently-O: The Impact of Mayo v. Prometheus: Three Weeks In – The decisions that have been released that rely on the Supreme Court opinion in Mayo v. Prometheus are highlighted and summarized in this post.

4) Patents4life: Aventis v. Hospira – How to Meet the Therasense Standards – This post discusses the Federal Circuit’s decision in Aventis v. Hospira, and how the inventors were found to have intentionally decided not to submit two material pieces of prior art to the PTO.

5) IP Kat: Patents and jurisdiction 2: Innovia v Frito-Lay – This post analyzes the question of which court Europeans can bring their patent related claims. The reason for this is, “because the same patents get litigated in jurisdictions outside the European Union too, and the effort of fighting to sue before the court of one’s choice often determines the outcome of the substantive proceedings too.”