Intellectual Property Forum The Intellectual Property Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New registrations are now permitted.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 07:52 pm 
Started by dryden_xx2 - Last post by mersenne
A couple of quickie points ... I use the "distribution of diff" idea in my patent applications, so I'm familiar with the concept, though in a different context.

If you're distributing context diffs, those include a few lines of the original work, which is used by the patch program to find the location to modify, even if it has moved slightly due to other patches.  So at the very least, you have a potential copyright problem in those lines.

Second, I think I recall a case where some bible-thumper group was distributing editing timecodes for movies, which could (in combination with suitable software or hardware) bleep out all the naughty or blasphemous words in the movie, or skip over the sex scenes.  (Or skip _to_ the sex scenes, I guess, if you were into that.)  Anyway, I don't know how that case turned out, but if you could find it, you might get some ideas for how a court would analyze the "not directly infringing, just providing instructions for somebody else to do something that may or may not be infringing if they decide independently and without our control to follow those instructions."

HTH.

 2 
 on: Today at 06:28 pm 
Started by MyPCTApplication - Last post by Sam Bergstrom
Bartmans thoughts closely mirror mine when I read your post. One wrinkle: The Examiner can be flat out wrong, especially in the first stage. If you're confident that this is the case, then an initial negative Opinion MAY BE mostly inconsequential.

However, as drilled into me by a fellow poster, be sure that your claim "terms"/features don't "map" onto techniques described in the prior art. Examiners tend to interpret terms/features much more expansively than the patent applicant. This problem can pop up in signal processing arts, for example, as we're typically abstracting complex, mathematical embodiments. Sometimes said abstractions "leak" into other techniques in a way not obvious to the patent drafter.

I'd stay focused on the upcoming chances to further explain the claims' distinguishing features and obtain a grant rather than going down a conspiracy-theory rabbit hole.

(NOTE: Just friendly free thoughts. This is not legal advice and it does NOT establish an attorney-client relationship)

 3 
 on: Today at 06:20 pm 
Started by Blueboris - Last post by nmayweather
FWIW, it doesn't sound like you have a problem with a patent.

It sounds like you probably have issues with Trademark and Copyright on the marketing materials/collateral.

A lot of people buy things to sell on ebay and use some stock photography of a given product. Some manufacturers allow for that, but others will complain to ebay on copyright grounds.  Ebay will unlist the item and may cancel the seller's account for this.

Sometimes people will buy items in bulk from a manufacturer or distributor, then resell them individually -- undercutting the price of the manufacturer or licensed retailers.  The brand will often go after the ebay sellers to shut them down.  There are some loopholes to "first sale doctrine" that allow for them to do this.

Most likely though, you may be selling items that are counterfeit (not made by the actual brand) or were made in another country and imported (thereby violating brand or patent licensing agreements on the act import).  In that case, the rightsholder won't want your items on the market at all -- as they may be made of an inferior quality and be easily confused with their official product.

There are a few other common reasons ebay might cancel a listing or account as well.


 4 
 on: Today at 05:02 pm 
Started by Tobmapsatonmi - Last post by mhgy
Considering the following,
US prov filed in year 1999
PCT-US filed timely at 1-year mark claiming priority to the prov.
Various international applications timely filed at 18 months from PCT filing.  But no US is filed.

About 30 months after the international filing deadline has expired, the applicant apparently decides he'd like to have a US app, too.  Simply files petition to revive with fee and statement that the delay was unintentional.

Petition granted without inquiry.  "Okay Dokey", says the USPTO; no curiosity about how or why it was so delayed.  Seriously?  Particularly in view of the timely foreign filings?  Whatever. 

Okay, rant over, I do have an actual question.  Given the ß371 filing date is so late (the date on which the US national phase was finally received), does other prior art come in?  Or is this app shielded against prior art all the way back to the provisional filing of about 5 years ago?

I assume it's the latter... once the petition was granted, it's just like the applicant had been timely all along?

If you are referring to whether the examiner will examine the app as if it had been timely filed all along, then yes, the examiner will. This is interesting though because my gut reaction was that Office of Petitions' decision whether to grant the revival or not would simply be an administrative decision by the USPTO that a court would not be bound by if subsequently challenged. However, I did some reading on this and my gut might be incorrect:

Quote
We conclude that 'improper revival' is not a cognizable defense in an action involving the validity or infringement of a patent.
Aristocrat Technologies Australia PTY Limited v. Intern. Game Technology, 543 F. 3d 657 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

There is a potential distinction in your situation though. In Aristocrat Technologies, the fee to enter national stage in the US was paid one day late, not thirty months. FN4 of Aristocrat Technologies leaves the door open for challenging a granted patent for extreme delays in prosecution:

Quote
We take this opportunity to point out that "prosecution irregularities" is distinct from "prosecution laches." Prosecution laches stems not from any procedural lapse or irregularity during prosecution, but rather from an abuse of statutory provisions that results, as a matter of equity, in "an unreasonable and unexplained delay in prosecution." Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ. & Research Found., 422 F.3d 1378, 1385 (Fed.Cir. 2005). Moreover, the legislative history of 35 U.S.C. ß 282 suggests that it was intended to incorporate preexisting equitable defenses, including prosecution laches. Symbol Techs., Inc. v. Lemelson Med., Educ. & Research Found., 277 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed.Cir.2002).

Symbol Techs. (cited by Aristocrat Technolgies) further states:

Quote
the doctrine [or prosecution laches] should be used sparingly lest statutory provisions be unjustifiably vitiated. The doctrine should be applied only in egregious cases of misuse of the statutory patent system.

If failure to file a US national stage was in fact intentional, I cannot think of a more egregious misuse of the patent system then that. Therefore, I think the patent could be invalidated under equity.

 5 
 on: Today at 04:39 pm 
Started by examiner_bio - Last post by bartmans
Quote
General tech area is biotechnology
In biotechnology cases it is more or less standard that you get rejections based on 112 and on all parts of 112 (written description, enablement and indefiniteness). The indefinitness rejections in general are the most easy - just replace some wording - while the written description rejections generally are the most problematic.
The best approach to rebut such rejections would be to argue that your genus definition is sufficiently exemplified by the two species and that all other species that would fall within the genus would result in a similar effect (but I assume that you already tried this argument).
Further, these kind of rejections are very case and technology field specific, so it is difficult to give general guidelines.

 6 
 on: Today at 04:29 pm 
Started by MyPCTApplication - Last post by bartmans
From your post I sense a sort of conspiracy assumption. In general I would say that this is highly unlikely. It seems only logical that you run into people and prior art from this ginat company,since
a) they will have many patent applications, of which a fair number will be relevant to your technology (otherwise you would not have approached them as license candidates) and
b) they will have many ex-employees of which some will have ended up at the patent office and - not surprisingly - in the field of your invention.

The fact that the US patent office did grant you a patent for your technology does not imply that it would be easy or even at all possible to get a patent in another jurisdiction. Especially in the computer field the patentability criteria vary from country to country and until recently (the Alice decision) the US had a reputation of being easy on getting patents on computer inventions and business methods.

Further, the written opinion that has been provided by the Examiner in the PCT application will be very much coloured with respect to the jurisdiction from which this Examiner comes. If this is the EPO the approach of the Examiner will certainly be very different from what you have experienced in the USA, but it does not follow automatically that the negative opinion will be shared by all examiners in the diverse national or regional phases.

The second best thing that you can due is to go for preliminary examination. In that procedure you can file a response to the Written Opinion and - if needed - an amended set of claims. However, you should be aware that in many cases the patentability requirements differ from those in the US.
The best thing you can do is to consult a patent attorney to see whether the situation is as bad as you think it is. In many cases the objections that have been raised can be easily overcome or do appear to be only specific for some jurisdictions.

 7 
 on: Today at 04:19 pm 
Started by Tobmapsatonmi - Last post by Tobmapsatonmi
Considering the following,
US prov filed in year 1999
PCT-US filed timely at 1-year mark claiming priority to the prov.
Various international applications timely filed at 18 months from PCT filing.  But no US is filed.

About 30 months after the international filing deadline has expired, the applicant apparently decides he'd like to have a US app, too.  Simply files petition to revive with fee and statement that the delay was unintentional.

Petition granted without inquiry.  "Okay Dokey", says the USPTO; no curiosity about how or why it was so delayed.  Seriously?  Particularly in view of the timely foreign filings?  Whatever. 

Okay, rant over, I do have an actual question.  Given the ß371 filing date is so late (the date on which the US national phase was finally received), does other prior art come in?  Or is this app shielded against prior art all the way back to the provisional filing of about 5 years ago?

I assume it's the latter... once the petition was granted, it's just like the applicant had been timely all along?

 8 
 on: Today at 04:04 pm 
Started by JTripodo - Last post by camrol22
also i email the hr for Detroit position which i was referred at the same time with the VA one, and hr said this:
application status updates are forthcoming.

 9 
 on: Today at 02:24 pm 
Started by JTripodo - Last post by camrol22
i just got this for VA position:
No selections were made from this certificate; hiring goal has been met utilizing the previous certificate.
Its stupid why would they referred even though i had interview 6 months ago same position. any ways im waiting for Detroit position.

 10 
 on: Today at 01:20 pm 
Started by matrice - Last post by smgsmc
I feel more and more boring with laboratory work after 5 years in chemical industry.  It is too narrow for me and I am not satisfied with this.

If youíre bored with lab work after 5 yrs in industry, your brain will be starved for intellectual challenge after 5 yrs of patent prosecution.  But Iím someone who enjoyed lab work:  regardless of the politics and the chaos and the bad management swirling around me, I was fine as long as I could play with my toys in the lab.  Are there opportunities for you to lateral to different projects and learn new skills?  The question I always ask people in your situation:  Would you rather create inventions of your own or write about other people's inventions?

I foresee continuous declining in chemistry R&D and future job insecurity (the company I am currently working at had occasional lay-offs in past 3 years and the size has significantly shrink down).

No one can predict job security in any field.  Iíve experienced three major industry meltdowns.  E.g., in late-1999 there was a shortage of R&D scientists and engineers in optoelectronics:  major labs were offerring referral bounties and sign-on bonuses  By mid-2000 there were storm clouds.  By mid-2001 there was an industry wide meltdown, with major layoffs across the board and some major companies shortly boarding up.

There is one major advantage of patent law over R&D, though.  Changes in patent work occur more gradually than in R&D.  Once you have developed skills  in patent work, they donít go out of date as quickly as your skills in R&D.   In R&D, a senior scientist or engineer these days is vulnerable to being booted and replaced by a cheaper fresh PhD schooled in the latest and greatest techniques.  Not so in patent work:  there is a premium for experience.  There is also the matter of luck and timing:  If R&D continues to decline, who will be feeding work to the former R&D scientists who left the lab for patent work?


As an inventor, I frequently interact with in-house patent lawyers.  Generally they are a lot better respected than scientists and they have great influence and are often decision makers.

First off, in-house positions are hard to get.  Second, (with one exception described below), in-house positions typically require several years of experience at a law firm.  So at some point youíll need to pay your dues by working at a law firm, where respect and influence may be hard to come by.  Even as an in-house patent attorney, the respect and influence youíll have will vary a lot.  In some Megacorps, the primary role of in-house counsel is to crack the whip on outside counsel:  supply chain management has deemed patents to be commodities and decided that outsourcing is more economical.

I donít know what size company you work for.  Some Megacorps have programs in which experienced scientists and engineers (already working at the Megacorps) transition to IP work and go to law school part time (at company expense).  Some Megacorps also have programs in which experienced scientists and engineers (already working at the Megacorps) transition to project or product management and go to business school part time (at company expense).  These programs are becoming rarer, as Megacorps cut expenses and are more concerned about this quarterís profits than long-term development of its staff.  But it doesnít hurt to ask.  If you want to bug out of the lab and become a decision maker, you should at least consider the product management and MBA route.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10


Footer

www.intelproplaw.com

Terms of Use
Feel free to contact us:
Sorry, spam is killing us.

iKnight Technologies Inc.

www.intelproplaw.com

Page created in 0.197 seconds with 18 queries.