Patent Law Practice Center

Fundamentals of Patent Prosecution Highlights: Claim Drafting & Preparation of Patent Application

Another great presentation I sat in on today at Fundamentals of Patent Prosecution 2011 was an Introduction to Patent Drafting. The speaker was Willian Frommer of Frommer Lawrence & Haug .  Here are the highlights from the discussion:

 Frommer suggested that whenever possible, the attorney should interview the inventor to obtain a detailed understanding of the invention and that an attorney’s role is to learn of a specific embodiment of the invention, but also to predict possible alternative embodiments and implementations that may be brought to market. He offered two practice tips: 1) Courts will sometimes limit a claim to a preferred embodiment or even invalidate claims that are broader than the disclosed embodiments.  The more embodiments, the better.  Try to anticipate competing products that may affect your client’s market and 2) The inventor is often the best source for alternative embodiments. (more…)

10 Mistakes That Will Kill Your Patent in Litigation & How To Avoid Them

Selected Aspects Of The Impact Of Patent Application Drafting And Prosecution

Louis S. Sorell, Patent Counsel at Google Inc. in New York City, sent in this article he wrote discussing issues that arise during patent prosectuon which may impact subsequent litigation.  Sorell will be speaking at PLI’s Fundamentals of Patent Prosecution 2011: A Boot Camp for Claim Drafting & Amendment Writing on June 17, 2011.  The following is an excerpt from the article:

Introduction

Issues often arise during patent prosecution which impact the course of subsequent patent litigation.  This paper discusses several specific areas in which decisions made during prosecution may particularly impact subsequent litigation.

A.   Background

With respect to the claim language itself, the words of the claims govern and are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning. The focus of this analysis is “what one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood the term to mean.” (more…)

Litigation Issues Relevant To Patent Prosecution: The Defense of Inequitable Conduct

Jeanne Curtis, a Partner at Ropes & Gray, sent in this article she wrote with her colleagues discussing the defense of inequitable conduct and the recent Federal Circuit holdings pertaining to the doctrine.  Curtis will speaking at PLI’s Fundamentals of Patent Prosecution 2011: A Boot Camp for Claim Drafting & Amendment Writing on June 17, 2011. The following is an excerpt from the article:

I. INTRODUCTION

All patent applicants have a duty to prosecute their applications with “candor and good faith.” This duty of candor also extends beyond mere applicants, further covering individuals who are “substantively involved in preparation or prosecution of the application,” including named inventors and attorneys or agents who help prepare or prosecute the application. The duty does not, however, apply to corporations or institutions unless an individual within the corporation or institution was substantively involved in prosecuting the application.

Compliance with the duty of candor is of paramount importance during prosecution of an application. Any failure to comply with the duty exposes an applicant to a potential finding of inequitable conduct, which carries with it a host of undesirable and potentially expensive consequences. The Federal Circuit has articulated that “[a] patent may be rendered unenforceable for inequitable conduct if an applicant, with intent to mislead or deceive the examiner, fails to disclose material information or submits materially false information to the PTO during prosecution.” (more…)

Life in the Fast Lane – Use of the Patent Prosecution Highway

Michael Davitz, Partner at Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider and  Practice Center Contributor, recently sent in this article he wrote with colleague’s Drew Schulte and Jia Li discussing the Patent Prosecution Highway and the value that can be achieved for those practitioners willing to explore the new program.

In July of 2006, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) established a trial program with the Japanese Patent Office, where an applicant with an allowed claim in one office could fast track the examination of a corresponding application filed in the other patent office.  This program paved the way for what would become known as the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH).[1] Today, the PPH includes patent offices in many of the world’s largest economies and is growing.[2] Despite the USPTO’s estimate of a 94% overall allowance rate for PPH applications as compared to 44% for non-PPH cases when the United States is the Office of Second Filing,[3] practitioners have continued to be wary of using the new program, especially when it comes to leveraging entire patent portfolios.[4]

In part, the hesitation to embrace the PPH reflects a legitimate fear of comparatively untested methods when it comes to patent prosecution. Although patent practitioners deal every day with cutting-edge technology, which innovates constantly, they are often reluctant to try new approaches as patent prosecution is fraught with dangerous liability.[5] However, for those practitioners willing to explore this new avenue, the PPH offers potentially great rewards in terms of easier and faster prosecutions which can provide value-added leverage for a client’s patent portfolios. (more…)