Tag >> US
US food and drug administration (FDA) issues its final guidance regarding the new regulation of genetically engineered animals. The FDA approves that the DNA of genetically engineered animals is a private property that can be held under a patent. Genetic engineering refers to a genetic manipulation of organism genes. The process starts by isolating the required gene, inserting the gene into a plasmid - an extra-chorosomal DNA molecule that is separated from the chromosomal DNA (other vectors beside plasmid (viruses, for instance) can be used). After the aforementioned gene has been modified by the vector, it can be used to modify the genetic attributes of the organism. The FDA requires that any genetically modified animal products must be proven as safe for human used. The approval process
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
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: Zeev Fisher in USPTO, US, United States, PPH on
Dec 20, 2008
Hi all! Pendency periods in the USPTO have been awful within the last few years. It is a repeating scenario for all of us to sit in front of a client who never filed a patent application and advise him that he should expect 2-4 years before the first office action. Some clients are shocked. Some merely accept that this is a fact of life. Lately, things are changing. While there is no improvement what so ever in pendency periods, the USPTO has replaced the old "petitions to make special" system and is trying various programs to improve examination. The candy is acceleration - your application steps out of the line and becomes first. Applicant's age or health Out of the old system, the only "survivors" are petitions to make special (to accelerate) based on the applicant's age (above 65) or
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
In the In Re Bilski case, the US Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit has made a decision about what it takes for a process claim to be patentable. On October 30, 2008, the United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit has made a much anticipated decision in a case concerning a business method patent, the so-called In Re Bilski case. The decision is expected to be of vital importance to the validity of process claims in general, but especially to software/computer-implemented processes and business methods. Concurrently with the fact that the decision tightens up the conditions for getting approved typically software patents and business method patents, at any rate it also verifies that it is possible to patent that kind of things at all. The decision discusses what it takes
Posted by: Zeev Fisher in USPTO, US, JPO, Japan on
Oct 04, 2008
USPTO PRESS RELEASE: Washington, D.C. -On September 24, 2008, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Jon Dudas met with Commissioner of the Japan Patent Office (JPO) Takashi Suzuki in Geneva, Switzerland. They discussed how the USPTO and the JPO can further promote the existing close relationship between the two offices. They agreed that the expeditious protection of intellectual property rights including patents is critical to fostering technological innovation and accelerating economic development. At the conclusion of their meeting, Commissioner Suzuki and Under Secretary Dudas signed a statement focusing on enhanced mutual cooperation. The JPO and the USPTO have already been cooperating closely to
Posted by: Michael Kondoudis in USPTO, US on
Sep 22, 2008
For those who are still filing by paper, the USPTO announced last week that it will finally be doing away with the requirement for duplicate copies of forms required for processing fees (e.g., an authorization to charge a deposit account). Before Image File Wrappers (IFWs), when paper filing was an Applicant's only option, duplicate copies of fee processing forms were required because the USPTO processed fees separately from the paper application file. Today, however, these forms are scanned into an IFW so that they are viewable throughout the USPTO, even when these forms are submitted by paper. Even in those few applications in which duplicate copies would still be necessary for processing a fee (e.g., national security applications), the USPTO will make any necessary copies required
Posted by: Michael Kondoudis in USPTO, US on
Aug 25, 2008
The United States Congress has been debating whether to amend the patent laws currently in Title 35 of the United States Code. If respective patent reform bills pass the House and the Senate, this would represent the first comprehensive patent law reform by Congress since the Patent Act of 1952.
The Senate Bill has been shelved for this session but will likely be reintroduced next year. The House Bill, however, has passed, mirrors the Senate Bill, and includes the following major changes to current U.S. Patent Law and practice:
1. A switch from a first-to-invent system to a first-to-file system. The current U.S. "first to invent" system would be replaced with a "first to file" system.
2. A mechanism for third parties to submit art directly to Examiners. Under current U.S. practice, the
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >> |
|
|
|
 |
Partners |
 |
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
