Tag >> Patent Prosecution
Posted by: Yen Thieu in Worldwide patent, Vietnam, prosecution, Pharmaceuticals, PCT national stage, Patents, Patent Prosecution, Patent filing, patent, novelty, law, intellectual property, examination, EPO, Drug patents, claims on
May 13, 2009
Patentability of medical use claims in Vietnam has been debated for long time. At certain points of time, a number of Vietnamese patents were granted with medical use claims (first use or second use) following the practice at EPO. However, with the advent of the Code of Intellectual Property 2005, which came into force on July 1, 2006, the question again became hotly arguing. In applying the Code of Intellectual Property 2005, medical use claims, just like any other use claims, are rejected in Vietnam for failure to be either products or processes, and hence subject to exclusion from patent protection in the country. Patent applicants, especially those in pharmaceutical industries, and their patent agents choose to either: (1) convert the second medical use claims (Swiss type, as named
A Texas based patents owner, Information Protection and Authentication of Texas (IPAT) and Florida based patents licensee, Global Innovation Technology Holding (GITH) have filed a lawsuit against 12 system builders including Apple, Hewlett-Packard, Dell and Lenovo. The two companies claim that the 12 PC makers infringe patents numbered 5311591 and 5412717 which were granted in 1994. The said patents cover operating system software permissions for defining the range of operation of computer applications, in order to defend against security breaches and protect against viruses. The filing asserts that Apple has infringed the said patents by "making, using, providing, offering to sell, and selling ... hardware and/or software for protecting and/or authenticating information." The companies
St. Louis based cable television provider, Charter Communications INC has filed a lawsuit against the prominent phone services provider, Verizon communications INC. Charter is claiming that Verizon's VOD services infringe 4 of Charter's patents. The said patents cover VOD services, billing for VOD services and data transmission. Various sources claim that Charter, who did not file similar lawsuits against any other cable TV providers, is trying to cut back losses emanating from a direct competition with Verizon over the high-speed Internet costumers. In February 2007, Verizon sued Charter claiming that Charter's telephone services over a data network infringe 8 of Verizon patents. This case is still pending.
Illinois computer research (ICR) is suing Oprah Winfrew's book club over an allegedly patent infringement. The ICR patent titled Enhancing touch and feel on the Internet, was filed in 2000 and granted in 2006. The patent describes a way to provide a three-dimensional representation of an item from multiple perspectives and contemplates on how the aforementioned technology can be used to display books online. ICR also sued Google over the same patent in 2007 claiming that Google's book service is an infringement of their patent. Back in 2007, Google policy counsel and legislative strategist, Johanna Sheldon called for a patent reform that would free technology based companies like Google from patents
World.com. creator of technology for online 3D virtual gaming, filed a lawsuit against NCSoft Corporation a Texas based game developing company. NCSoft's games such as 'World of Heroes', 'Dungeon Runners' and 'Guild Wars' are all said to violate a US patent owned by World. Com titled "System and method for enabling users to interact in a virtual space". Curiously enough, one of the MCSoft Games mentioned in the lawsuit was created in 1998, two years before the World.com's patent was filed. The broadly worded World.Com patent was granted in 2007 and relates to computer architecture for a 3D graphical virtual world system intended for interactive multi-user gaming. The technology enables the manipulation of the player's avatar in a way that alters the character perspective and allows
Posted by: Ophir Tal in USPTO, US, United States, United Kingdom, UK-IPO, UK, russia, PPH, Patent Prosecution Highway, Patent Prosecution, patent, Japan, Israel, intellectual property, Great Britain, Europe, EPO, Denemark, Canada, Austria, Australia on
Dec 08, 2008
I'd like to draw your attention to Dennis Crouch's latest posting on Patenly O, presenting an actual estimation of waiting times for a first USPTO Office Action . I don't know if the statistics refer to all US Applications, i.e. including those filed as a PCT National Phase. As far as I know, Applications filed as a national phase of a PCT Application take longer than Applications originally submitted as a US Application.
Posted by: Ophir Tal in USPTO, software patent, Software, politics, Patents Opposition, Patents, Patently-O, Patentability, Patent Prosecution, Patent Legislation, patent, Internet Patent, intellectual property, cyberlaw, Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit, COMPUTER CONTROLLED SOFTWARE INTEGRATED INVENTIONS, claims, CAFC, blogging on
Jul 22, 2008
Prof. John F. Duffy analyses at Patently-O the probable position of the USPTO towards software patents as presented in a series of cases. Specifically, patentable subject matter must result in a physical transformation of an article that is tied to a particular machine. A general purpose computer may probably not be regarded as a particular machine, and data structures and numbers (e.g. webpage rankings) may probably neither be regarded as articles nor as being physically transformed. Well – some news for the software industry. The analysis is recommended as being not only thorough but also quite easy to read.
The American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 ("the AIPA") authorizes the extension of the term of a U.S. patent when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office USPTO fails to take certain actions within specified timeframes. Specifically, the AIPA guarantees that:
1. the USPTO will initially act on an application within 14 months of its filing date or the date on which an international application fulfilled the requirements to enter the national stage;
2. the USPTO will respond to a reply or appeal within 4 months from the date that a reply or appeal is filed;
3. the USPTO will act on the application within 4 months after a decision from the PTO Board of Appeals or Federal Court, where at least one allowable claim remains in the application;
4. that the USPTO will issue a patent within 4 months of
Posted by: Ophir Tal in USPTO, United States, prosecution, Patents Opposition, Patents, Patently-O, Patent search, Patent Prosecution, patent opposition, patent, oppositions, intellectual property, consultation, blogging on
Jul 08, 2008
A possibility for opposing pending patent applications in the US is presented by Dennis Crouch in his blog Patently-O under the title "poor-man's opposition proceedings ". The US law does not allow opposing a patent application (in contrary e.g. to israeli procedures which are partly based on receiving third party's oppositions), however they do commit applicants to submit to the patent office any relevant subject matter. So, the procedure comprises sending such subject matter to the applicant, thus making him obligated to disclose it to the patent office! I like this
<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >> |
|
|
|
 |
Partners |
 |
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
