Intellectual Property Forum The Intellectual Property Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

We are looking for moderators.  Message the admin if interested.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 11:16 am 
Started by astrojudo - Last post by astrojudo
Hello all,

In the following claim:

1. A chair consisting of a seat, a back, and four legs, wherein said legs comprise metal, wood, or plastic.

Can the material making up the legs be open ended since it seemingly does not add more elements to the chair but rather further defines what the leg is made out of?

I’ve come across this issue with an Examiner, where the Examiner rejected a claim with similar use of language and requires the use of “consisting of” language throughout. I'm curious to know if the Examiner is correct in his/her interpretation of the claim language.

thanks

 2 
 on: Today at 10:14 am 
Started by MYK - Last post by still_learnin
Hi MYK,

Thank you for the cited reference.

But it is a lawsuit about a pharmaceutical medicine. Could you please give a simpler explanation ... "Because Watson’s ANDA Product does not satisfy the Markush group requirements
in claim 1(b), we reverse and remand with instructions to enter judgment of non-infringement. "


Here's a good summary of the case explaining some of what you're asking about:


http://www.klgates.com/markush-madness-watson-avoids-infringement-by-adding-an-element-to-a-formulation-04-04-2017/

 3 
 on: Today at 09:45 am 
Started by MYK - Last post by Weng Tianxiang
Hi MYK,

Thank you for the cited reference.

But it is a lawsuit about a pharmaceutical medicine. Could you please give a simpler explanation using only X, Y and Z to talk about the key points on what "consist" among "consisting", especially "Because Watson’s ANDA Product does not satisfy the Markush group requirements
in claim 1(b), we reverse and remand with instructions to enter judgment of non-infringement. "

Thank you.

Weng

 4 
 on: Today at 05:14 am 
Started by snake79 - Last post by MYK
1. You wrote that the "attachment [is] of similar geometry to mine".
2. Can the similarity be seen in the photograph?
3. What are the differences?
4. you write that the article is about "the life of coconut farmers".  This usually does not include careful descriptions of their equipment.
5. Is the attachment described in words in the article?
6. If the attachment is not described in words in the article, then how can anyone search to see the similarity?


At least in U.S. law, "available" is ascribed with a deeper meaning than "some guy happened to get a snapshot of something similar in his vacation photos".  Also, importantly, you didn't derive your invention from the photo or from knowledge of the "similar" attachment.

 5 
 on: Today at 04:46 am 
Started by 170orDie - Last post by MYK
BTW, I wouldn't call UW's stats "abysmal".  UW grads get lots of good law jobs.

The reality is that there are not that many biglaw jobs, especially as electronic discovery and offshoring of document review are being used more and more.  The megafirms used to hire tons of cannon fodder who would be dumped after a year or two of reading billions of pages of documents looking for typos to exploit.  (Welcome to the glamorous world of litigation, comrade!)  Then they learned that they can do that in India for two cents a page, or by importing all the documents into a database and running a database query.

 6 
 on: Today at 04:26 am 
Started by 170orDie - Last post by MYK
I would be very happy to live in Seattle, I have many ties there. Do you think I can have any sort of confidence in getting BL from UW? I know normally their stats are rather abysmal, but does the patent law route bump me up at all?

If you want biglaw, then UT.

Seattle has Microsoft, so there's a lot of software patenting going on there.  Downside: when the 800lb gorilla gets the flu, everyone feels it.

 7 
 on: Today at 03:44 am 
Started by 170orDie - Last post by 170orDie
If you're absolutely set on Seattle only, then of the three you picked, UW would be the obvious choice.  If you want to be more competitive anywhere in the country, then UT (assuming that means University of Texas at Austin) would be the obvious choice.

I would be very happy to live in Seattle, I have many ties there. Do you think I can have any sort of confidence in getting BL from UW? I know normally their stats are rather abysmal, but does the patent law route bump me up at all?

 8 
 on: Today at 03:01 am 
Started by MYK - Last post by MYK
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-1785.Opinion.2-8-2017.1.PDF

 9 
 on: Today at 02:54 am 
Started by 170orDie - Last post by MYK
The number indicate the estimated total cost of attendance. I am interested in practicing in Seattle or LA/SF. In your experience do you see CS being still sought after?

If you're absolutely set on Seattle only, then of the three you picked, UW would be the obvious choice.  If you want to be more competitive anywhere in the country, then UT (assuming that means University of Texas at Austin) would be the obvious choice.

CS degree is good, but experience would be very helpful.  Once you go to law school, you will not get any more CS experience.  So you will be competing with other people with no CS experience.  If you had 5 years CS prior to law school, you would look better than those fresh grads, and there is nothing they could do about it.
Thinking about it, I mostly disagree with this sentiment.  Having had a job will show that you're employable, but the day-to-day stuff in CS is so remote from patent work that I don't see it as being useful.  If you've worked steadily as a waitress during undergrad, it shows just as much employability, frankly.

The rare occasions when I actually used any advanced skills at work, the companies mostly didn't care or actively ignored my work.  It was all just a day-to-day grind to produce functional code, and in the modern "bugs are ok as long as they're not fatal" mindset, they didn't even care if the code worked well.

 10 
 on: Yesterday at 11:25 pm 
Started by MYK - Last post by MYK
For anybody who's interested (like me!  Thanks, MWE!)
Indeed, thanks!  And thanks, David -- I saw your thread on this just after I posted this question.  How weird that we both ran into the same thing at the same time -- and as it turns out, right around when a case came out.  The mind boggles, or at least mine does.

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 0.101 seconds with 18 queries.