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] 7 8 9 10
 51 
 on: 09-13-17 at 12:47 pm 
Started by Patentstudent - Last post by midwestengineer
Are you trying to ask whether the dentist tool formed using parts purchased from vendors may infringe patents?

If the new product formed of parts of an old product infringes a patent not owned by the parts of the old product manufacturer, the inventor may be liable.  Exhaustion will generally not bar infringement in this scenario.

Generally, patent exhaustion would prevent the manufacturer of the pen from asserting any patent rights that the manufacturer had in the parts of the pen against the inventor so long as the pen was properly purchased.  There are some exceptions to the general rule that are fact specific.

 52 
 on: 09-13-17 at 10:42 am 
Started by December12 - Last post by blakesq
the only issue I see is conflicts on the client's patents you are working on. 

 53 
 on: 09-13-17 at 08:49 am 
Started by Arbu - Last post by bartmans
Sorry for the delay in responding, but I have been traveling.

It is indeed a yes, and you will find numerous patents that indeed do not (or at least not fully) explain the working mechanism of the drug.
Often an attempt is provided to hypothesize what the working mechanism is, but this is more to be able to argue that also variants of the drugs (that e.g. would have the same active group or that bind to the same receptor) would also be able to work (without even showing that any or all of these variants work).

Also very often, especially with new drugs, the applications are filed at a stage where there is hardly any testing involved and only the claimd activity of the drug is derived from in vitro or at best animal tests. In those case you need to show that the the therapeutic activity that is claimed is plausible from the data that is provided. The term 'plausible' is a term from the European patent field; I assume that in the USA they rather use the word 'credible'.

 54 
 on: 09-13-17 at 08:36 am 
Started by Several_Pages1 - Last post by bartmans
It should be possible to file a PCT application claiming priority of an abandoned provisional application.
According to the Paris Convention a priority claim is valid to any previous application, regardless if it is still pending or not. Also, it would be allowable since the USA has acceded to the PLT agreement, where this agreement says that a filing date and number (and thus also the right to claim priority) can be obtained for an application even without paying any fees.
In Europe (EPC) and many of the European countries it works this way and it is perfectly possible to claim priority from an application for which no fees were paid and which thus is considered to be abandoned. 

 55 
 on: 09-13-17 at 04:08 am 
Started by patentpanda - Last post by NJ Patent1
Just to paraphrase tati; its largely about claim construction, a tedious time-consuming endeavor.  If the claims of X or Y were construed to read on your product (“technology”), would they also read on the prior art?  Prior art, if close in time to the priority dates of X and Y, can sometimes inform how the skilled artisan in the relevant art understood a particular term used in X and Y. 

 56 
 on: 09-13-17 at 03:25 am 
Started by Pianist - Last post by tati
How about Prior Art Database (priorart.ip.com)? The publications are dated, so you can secure the date on which the document went public. Although one has to pay to retrieve those articles, as far as I know they are considered valid prior art, at least by EP examiners.

 57 
 on: 09-13-17 at 03:21 am 
Started by patentpanda - Last post by tati
In my field (chemistry) there is often the case that some patents claim stuff which are actually prior art, but the claim scope was not properly restricted. In this respect, a specific reaction sequence may actually be ok, because it's prior art, yet there is a patent out there which appears to be infringed. What actually happens is that the patent is not valid, at least with regard to the subject matter claimed which is prior art. Therefore, it is sometimes essential to know what is validly claimed and what is not.

Does the prior art section appear to have been done with respect to the claimed subject matter of the two competitor's patents?

 58 
 on: 09-13-17 at 01:49 am 
Started by patentpanda - Last post by patentpanda
I am reading a non-infringement opinion issued by a firm of patent attorneys with respect to our firm's technology and two competitor US patents (Let's call them X and Y both with priority dates around 2001). 

One part I was curious about is that it has a section where they have done a "Prior Art Search" using a set of search terms and have presented info on a set of other patents they discovered. These are patents spanning a priority date time range from before 2001 to very recent.

I am wondering what is the relevance of this section?

How is the question of whether our extant technology infringes on US patent X or US patent Y impacted by the existence of other prior art?

Just curious to know why a non-infringement opinion about *specific* patents would search out other patents on which a non-infringement opinion has not even been sought? Is this just gratuitous background or can that info impact the specific question of infringement of Patents X and Y?

 59 
 on: 09-13-17 at 01:34 am 
Started by MR - Last post by bluerogue
Also (haven't looked at it in a while), I thought QPIDS was only for the case where you'd already filed the issue fee, THEN the art popped up thereafter.

Not your usual "I got allowance then art popped up" situation.

Internally there are two QPIDS paths.  One for prior to issue fee, one for after.  Both are considered QPIDS cases and we get up to 3 hours of other time to consider the IDS. I think only the after issue fee is publicly noted as QPIDS, but internally both are considered under the QPIDS program.

 60 
 on: 09-12-17 at 11:36 pm 
Started by MR - Last post by Tobmapsatonmi
Also (haven't looked at it in a while), I thought QPIDS was only for the case where you'd already filed the issue fee, THEN the art popped up thereafter.

Not your usual "I got allowance then art popped up" situation.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 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 0.235 seconds with 18 queries.