Tag >> Patent Prosecution
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
Ranbaxy Laboratories, an India based Drug Company and Pfizer have settled a court dispute over Lipitor, cholesterol lowering drug. The dispute started in 2003 regarding a generic version of the drug that was marketed by Ranbaxy. Pfizer also sue Ranbaxy over patents expiring in 2016 regarding the active ingredient in Lipidor. The Settlement allows Ranbaxy to market the generic version in 2011, keeping copies of the cholesterol pill of the U.S market for an extra 20 months thus protecting 12 billion in sales to Pfizer. The aforementioned settlement also allows Ranbaxy to sell the generic drug on various dates in seven other countries including Canada, Australia and Germany. Pfizer and Ranbaxy also agreed that Ranbaxy will stop contesting the validity of Pfizer patents in several specified
An Israeli company by the name of AEROTEL LTD lost its right to a patent for telephone systems in a ruling made by the high court of justice chancery division (patents court) of England ("the High Court") on May 23, 2008. The Israeli company sued WaveCrest (a pre-paid calling card company) for infringement of its patent, which was granted to her on 1985 on a new way of making pre-paid phone calls from any telephone (The Patent relates basically to a method of making pre-paid telephone calls which is available for use from any telephone and to hardware for doing so). Although this patent was more than 20 years old and therefore expired, the sides litigated over alleged infringements when the patent was in force. The High Court ruled that the idea behind the patent was not new and was
The USPTO has signed a memorandum of understanding with the European Patent Office and the Japanese Patent Office that includes a common application format (CAF). The intent of the CAF is to simplify and streamline application filing requirements in each of these three offices.
EPO: The EPO is planning to implement the CAF in early 2009.
JPO: The JPO is planning to incrementally implement the CAF in early 2009.
USPTO: The CAF meets or exceeds current USPTO requirements.
Basic principles of the CAF can be found here . Mike Kondoudis Patent attorney in Washington DC
Everybody gets sued for infringing "Mobile entertainment
Canadian Intellecutal Property Office (CIPO) announced on Monday, January 14, 2008, that CIPO will launch a one-year Canada-US Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) joint pilot program on January 28, 2008, that will fast-track patent examination at CIPO and will applicants in both countries to obtain corresponding patents faster and more efficiently. Please note that, during the
|
|
|
|
 |
Partners |
 |
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
