NEWS FLASH: //Check our latest course offering on Patent-Business-Strategy over at Udemy here: http://www.udemy.com/patent-business-strategy/ with a 50 per cent launch discount //
This a discussion on patent infringement for academic purpose. Please do NOT consider this legal advice.
[Some material has not been updated for recent changes, so use it at your own risk]
Disclaimer: This is not legal advice.
NEWS FLASH: //Check our latest course offering on Patent-Business-Strategy over at Udemy here: http://www.udemy.com/patent-business-strategy/ with a 50 per cent launch discount //
A general academic discussion about doctrine of equivalence in US, Japan and other countries as applied by courts in patent infringement cases. [Some material has not been updated for recent changes, so use it at your own risk]
Disclaimer: This is not legal advice.
Patent: A presentation on "Patent Drafting" by Ms. Vinita Radhakrishnan - Ban...BananaIP Counsels
Patent: A presentation on "Patent Drafting" by Ms. Vinita Radhakrishnan - BananaIP
BananaIP Counsels, formerly Brain League IP Services, founded in 2004 at the Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Bangalore’s incubation center (NSRCEL), is recognized as an IP/Patent trailblazer in India. The firm’s mission is to help clients maximize business value from their Intellectual Property (IP)/Patents, and gain competitive advantage in the market place. In its evolution from Brain League, BananaIP carries forward the firm’s core values – Merger of Technology,Management and Law, Swift Adaptation to changes in competitive environment, and business driven approach to Intellectual Property (IP)/Patent Services.
Contact Us for Intellectual Property Services
BananaIP Counsels
Regd Office
No.40,3rd Main Road,JC Industrial Estate,
Kanakapura Road,Bangalore – 560 062.
Email: contact@bananaip.com
Telephone: +91-80-26860414 /24/34
Understanding Changes to 35 USC 102 or "First-(Inventor)-To-FileHovey Williams LLP
Overview of 35 USC 102 and how it affects patent registration for inventors. This presentation addresses congressional action governing patent applications, USPTO guidelines, new provisions and hypothetical situations for discussion. Developed by Crissa A. Seymour Cook of Hovey Williams, LLP.
Patents 101 Part 4 - Applying for a PatentJane Lambert
The handout to the fourth module of my introduction to English patent law. The procedure for applying for a UK patent and European patent (UK) and making PCT applications. Appeals to the Comptroller in the UK and the Boards of Appeal in the EPO. Entitlement and inventorship disputes,
At a recent Forresters And Knobbe Martens Seminar, Charlotte Teall (Forresters) and Dan Altman (Knobbe Martens) presented "Latest Developments in European Patent Law: How to Apply Them in Both the United States and Europe."
NEWS FLASH: //Check our latest course offering on Patent-Business-Strategy over at Udemy here: http://www.udemy.com/patent-business-strategy/ with a 50 per cent launch discount //
This a discussion on patent infringement for academic purpose. Please do NOT consider this legal advice.
[Some material has not been updated for recent changes, so use it at your own risk]
Disclaimer: This is not legal advice.
NEWS FLASH: //Check our latest course offering on Patent-Business-Strategy over at Udemy here: http://www.udemy.com/patent-business-strategy/ with a 50 per cent launch discount //
A general academic discussion about doctrine of equivalence in US, Japan and other countries as applied by courts in patent infringement cases. [Some material has not been updated for recent changes, so use it at your own risk]
Disclaimer: This is not legal advice.
Patent: A presentation on "Patent Drafting" by Ms. Vinita Radhakrishnan - Ban...BananaIP Counsels
Patent: A presentation on "Patent Drafting" by Ms. Vinita Radhakrishnan - BananaIP
BananaIP Counsels, formerly Brain League IP Services, founded in 2004 at the Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Bangalore’s incubation center (NSRCEL), is recognized as an IP/Patent trailblazer in India. The firm’s mission is to help clients maximize business value from their Intellectual Property (IP)/Patents, and gain competitive advantage in the market place. In its evolution from Brain League, BananaIP carries forward the firm’s core values – Merger of Technology,Management and Law, Swift Adaptation to changes in competitive environment, and business driven approach to Intellectual Property (IP)/Patent Services.
Contact Us for Intellectual Property Services
BananaIP Counsels
Regd Office
No.40,3rd Main Road,JC Industrial Estate,
Kanakapura Road,Bangalore – 560 062.
Email: contact@bananaip.com
Telephone: +91-80-26860414 /24/34
Understanding Changes to 35 USC 102 or "First-(Inventor)-To-FileHovey Williams LLP
Overview of 35 USC 102 and how it affects patent registration for inventors. This presentation addresses congressional action governing patent applications, USPTO guidelines, new provisions and hypothetical situations for discussion. Developed by Crissa A. Seymour Cook of Hovey Williams, LLP.
Patents 101 Part 4 - Applying for a PatentJane Lambert
The handout to the fourth module of my introduction to English patent law. The procedure for applying for a UK patent and European patent (UK) and making PCT applications. Appeals to the Comptroller in the UK and the Boards of Appeal in the EPO. Entitlement and inventorship disputes,
At a recent Forresters And Knobbe Martens Seminar, Charlotte Teall (Forresters) and Dan Altman (Knobbe Martens) presented "Latest Developments in European Patent Law: How to Apply Them in Both the United States and Europe."
The presentation herein, on Basics of Specification Drafting, was delivered by Mr. Somashekar Ramakrishna at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, for Senior Officials of the Ministry of MSME, Government of India. Starting with specification contents, the presentation covers drafting guidelines, claim drafting basics and examples. For more information about the presentation or the event, you may contact the Sinapse team at sinapse@bananaip.com.
Contact Us for Intellectual Property Services
BananaIP Counsels
Regd Office
No.40,3rd Main Road,JC Industrial Estate,
Kanakapura Road,Bangalore – 560 062.
Email: contact@bananaip.com
Telephone: +91-80-26860414 /24/34
Mr. Rothe is an attorney with RatnerPrestia, PC, a law firm located in Valley Forge, PA. Christopher counsels clients in all areas of intellectual property law, including patents, IP risk management, and IP transactions. Mr. Rothe has expertise in prosecuting domestic and international patent applications. He is currently responsible for managing patent portfolios for a major U.S. manufacturer of surgical implants, and one of the nation's top children's hospitals.
Mr. Rothe is accustomed to explaining complex IP issues to individuals with various backgrounds, including general counsels, company presidents, CEOs, technology transfer specialists, marketing directors, engineers, scientists, and beginning entrepreneurs.
Mr. Rothe received a law degree from Villanova University School of Law. Before attending law school, Mr. Rothe spent four years working as an engineer in private practice. He received a B.S. in civil engineering from the Pennsylvania State University in 1992.
The following presentation was made by Mr. Somashekhar Ramakrishna, Partner BananaIP Counsels, at National Law School of India University, Bangalore (NLSIU), as a part of Patent law course offered for PGDIP students
The handout for the third of my modules on English patent law. This one deals with patentability or the conditions for the grant of a patent, namely novelty, an inventive step, utility and no exclusion from patentability. On novelty, readers are introduced to the concept of the "state of the art" and the test of novelty in General Tire and Rubber v Firestone. As to inventiveness, they are introduced to the concepts of the skilled addressee and common general knowledge and the Supreme Court's decision in Actavis v ICOS. Finally, on excluded matter there is a very close look at the Aerotel and Macrpssan tests.
This is the final module of my introduction to English patent law. It analyses s.60 (1) of the Patents Act 1977 in the light of s.125 (1). It considers para 4 of the Part 63 Practice Direction. It discusses Lord Diplock's judgment in Catnic It mentions s.125 (3) of the Patents Act, art 69 (1) EPC and the Protocol on Interpretation. It analyses Improver, Kirin Amgen, Eli Lilly v Actavis and Icescape. It discusses possible defences and threats actions.
The handout for the first module of my an introduction to English patent law. A patent is defined as "a monopoly of an invention". That proposition is unpacked to consider what is meant by "monopoly" and what is meant by "invention". These notes discuss the inventor's bargain with the public and its reflection in the specification, They explore what is meant by the teaching of the patent in the description and the monopoly in the claims,
Interested in recent patent and trade secret cases in the orthopedics industry? Knobbe Martens provides key takeaways relevant to orthopedics and other medical technologies that can help you with your own IP strategies and prepare you for your upcoming industry meetings in our recent presentation.
The third of my modules on English patent law. This one deals with patentability or the conditions for the grant of a patent, namely novelty, an inventive step, utility and no exclusion from patentability. On novelty, readers are introduced to the concept of the "state of the art" and the test of novelty in General Tire and Rubber v Firestone. As to inventiveness, they are introduced to the concepts of the skilled addressee and common general knowledge and the Supreme Court's decision in Actavis v ICOS. Finally, on excluded matter there is a very close look at the Aerotel and Macrossan tests.
This is the handout for the final module of my introduction to English patent law. It analyses s.60 (1) of the Patents Act 1977 in the light of s.125 (1). It considers para 4 of the Part 63 Practice Direction. It discusses Lord Diplock's judgment in Catnic It mentions s.125 (3) of the Patents Act, art 69 (1) EPC and the Protocol on Interpretation. It analyses Improver, Kirin Amgen, Eli Lilly v Actavis and Icescape. It discusses possible defences and threats actions.
Patent Law in 2014: Act fast or get left behindsteve_ritchey
A presentation on patent law fundamentals, the changes caused resulting from the America Invents Act, other topical patent law issues such as new developments on patentable subject matter, appellate review of claim constructions, and best practices
Secret sales- Now a Bar to Obtaining a US Patent.Kevin E. Flynn
For about 8 years, there has been a belief that it was safe for a company to sell an item or offer to sell an item without first filing a patent application as long as the sale or offer for sale was under a non-disclosure agreement so the sale would be secret and not public. This month, the United States Supreme Court in a unanimous decision said NO in Helsinn Healthcare S. A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,
Inventorship: Who should be listed as an inventor for a patent?Aurora Consulting
In the US especially, patents are granted to inventors. More often than not, that’s more than one person and the ideas themselves are fluid concepts that often evolve through many handoffs from initial conception through implementation and sometimes even throughout patent prosecution, but how do we determine who all should – and is legally required to be – named as an inventor?
In the constitutionally expressed interest of protecting inventors and the conception of their ideas, failure to include the right people can be a death sentence for a patent and grounds for invalidity.
Daniel Wright, Partnership Manager and Patent Strategist here at Aurora, leads a deep dive into the origins of inventorship, breaks down who is and isn’t eligible for inclusion as an inventor, and explains how improper inventorship could result in revoked patent rights.
Podcast: https://patentlystrategic.buzzsprout.com/1734511/9603758-inventorship-who-should-be-listed-as-an-inventor-for-a-patent
Blog post: https://www.aurorapatents.com/blog/new-podcast-inventorship
What's Your Strategy?
Prior Art.
Art Exceptions.
FITF "Scenarios".
Comparisons.
Transition Gap.
FITF Rules.
Scope of Patent Filing.
Prosecution Under First Inventor to File with Grace (FTFG).
Suggested FITF Strategies.
Secret sales- Now a Bar to Obtaining a US Patent.Kevin E. Flynn
For about 8 years, there has been a belief that it was safe for a company to sell an item or offer to sell an item without first filing a patent application as long as the sale or offer for sale was under a non-disclosure agreement so the sale would be secret and not public. This month, the United States Supreme Court in a unanimous decision said NO in Helsinn Healthcare S. A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,
Being a patent lawyer is a profession that can be complex and contentious. But what a patent lawyer really does is tell stories about people who make new things. This presentation is a story about innovation - the almost mystical force behind our human penchant for making new things. Because patent lawyers have a creative license to be their own lexicographers in the stories they tell.
Patents are the IP tool that societies have developed for encouraging investment in innovation while, at the same time, fostering technology disclosure.
The origins of patent grants trace back to Venice and England when the crown, always looking for new ways to make money, came up with a scheme for granting exclusive rights a tradesman as a way to break the grip the trade guilds held on technology then by their practice of keeping information about new technology as trade secrets that were passed from master to apprentice
Understanding the origins of patents is not just an academic exercise.
The presentation herein, on Basics of Specification Drafting, was delivered by Mr. Somashekar Ramakrishna at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, for Senior Officials of the Ministry of MSME, Government of India. Starting with specification contents, the presentation covers drafting guidelines, claim drafting basics and examples. For more information about the presentation or the event, you may contact the Sinapse team at sinapse@bananaip.com.
Contact Us for Intellectual Property Services
BananaIP Counsels
Regd Office
No.40,3rd Main Road,JC Industrial Estate,
Kanakapura Road,Bangalore – 560 062.
Email: contact@bananaip.com
Telephone: +91-80-26860414 /24/34
Mr. Rothe is an attorney with RatnerPrestia, PC, a law firm located in Valley Forge, PA. Christopher counsels clients in all areas of intellectual property law, including patents, IP risk management, and IP transactions. Mr. Rothe has expertise in prosecuting domestic and international patent applications. He is currently responsible for managing patent portfolios for a major U.S. manufacturer of surgical implants, and one of the nation's top children's hospitals.
Mr. Rothe is accustomed to explaining complex IP issues to individuals with various backgrounds, including general counsels, company presidents, CEOs, technology transfer specialists, marketing directors, engineers, scientists, and beginning entrepreneurs.
Mr. Rothe received a law degree from Villanova University School of Law. Before attending law school, Mr. Rothe spent four years working as an engineer in private practice. He received a B.S. in civil engineering from the Pennsylvania State University in 1992.
The following presentation was made by Mr. Somashekhar Ramakrishna, Partner BananaIP Counsels, at National Law School of India University, Bangalore (NLSIU), as a part of Patent law course offered for PGDIP students
The handout for the third of my modules on English patent law. This one deals with patentability or the conditions for the grant of a patent, namely novelty, an inventive step, utility and no exclusion from patentability. On novelty, readers are introduced to the concept of the "state of the art" and the test of novelty in General Tire and Rubber v Firestone. As to inventiveness, they are introduced to the concepts of the skilled addressee and common general knowledge and the Supreme Court's decision in Actavis v ICOS. Finally, on excluded matter there is a very close look at the Aerotel and Macrpssan tests.
This is the final module of my introduction to English patent law. It analyses s.60 (1) of the Patents Act 1977 in the light of s.125 (1). It considers para 4 of the Part 63 Practice Direction. It discusses Lord Diplock's judgment in Catnic It mentions s.125 (3) of the Patents Act, art 69 (1) EPC and the Protocol on Interpretation. It analyses Improver, Kirin Amgen, Eli Lilly v Actavis and Icescape. It discusses possible defences and threats actions.
The handout for the first module of my an introduction to English patent law. A patent is defined as "a monopoly of an invention". That proposition is unpacked to consider what is meant by "monopoly" and what is meant by "invention". These notes discuss the inventor's bargain with the public and its reflection in the specification, They explore what is meant by the teaching of the patent in the description and the monopoly in the claims,
Interested in recent patent and trade secret cases in the orthopedics industry? Knobbe Martens provides key takeaways relevant to orthopedics and other medical technologies that can help you with your own IP strategies and prepare you for your upcoming industry meetings in our recent presentation.
The third of my modules on English patent law. This one deals with patentability or the conditions for the grant of a patent, namely novelty, an inventive step, utility and no exclusion from patentability. On novelty, readers are introduced to the concept of the "state of the art" and the test of novelty in General Tire and Rubber v Firestone. As to inventiveness, they are introduced to the concepts of the skilled addressee and common general knowledge and the Supreme Court's decision in Actavis v ICOS. Finally, on excluded matter there is a very close look at the Aerotel and Macrossan tests.
This is the handout for the final module of my introduction to English patent law. It analyses s.60 (1) of the Patents Act 1977 in the light of s.125 (1). It considers para 4 of the Part 63 Practice Direction. It discusses Lord Diplock's judgment in Catnic It mentions s.125 (3) of the Patents Act, art 69 (1) EPC and the Protocol on Interpretation. It analyses Improver, Kirin Amgen, Eli Lilly v Actavis and Icescape. It discusses possible defences and threats actions.
Patent Law in 2014: Act fast or get left behindsteve_ritchey
A presentation on patent law fundamentals, the changes caused resulting from the America Invents Act, other topical patent law issues such as new developments on patentable subject matter, appellate review of claim constructions, and best practices
Secret sales- Now a Bar to Obtaining a US Patent.Kevin E. Flynn
For about 8 years, there has been a belief that it was safe for a company to sell an item or offer to sell an item without first filing a patent application as long as the sale or offer for sale was under a non-disclosure agreement so the sale would be secret and not public. This month, the United States Supreme Court in a unanimous decision said NO in Helsinn Healthcare S. A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,
Inventorship: Who should be listed as an inventor for a patent?Aurora Consulting
In the US especially, patents are granted to inventors. More often than not, that’s more than one person and the ideas themselves are fluid concepts that often evolve through many handoffs from initial conception through implementation and sometimes even throughout patent prosecution, but how do we determine who all should – and is legally required to be – named as an inventor?
In the constitutionally expressed interest of protecting inventors and the conception of their ideas, failure to include the right people can be a death sentence for a patent and grounds for invalidity.
Daniel Wright, Partnership Manager and Patent Strategist here at Aurora, leads a deep dive into the origins of inventorship, breaks down who is and isn’t eligible for inclusion as an inventor, and explains how improper inventorship could result in revoked patent rights.
Podcast: https://patentlystrategic.buzzsprout.com/1734511/9603758-inventorship-who-should-be-listed-as-an-inventor-for-a-patent
Blog post: https://www.aurorapatents.com/blog/new-podcast-inventorship
What's Your Strategy?
Prior Art.
Art Exceptions.
FITF "Scenarios".
Comparisons.
Transition Gap.
FITF Rules.
Scope of Patent Filing.
Prosecution Under First Inventor to File with Grace (FTFG).
Suggested FITF Strategies.
Secret sales- Now a Bar to Obtaining a US Patent.Kevin E. Flynn
For about 8 years, there has been a belief that it was safe for a company to sell an item or offer to sell an item without first filing a patent application as long as the sale or offer for sale was under a non-disclosure agreement so the sale would be secret and not public. This month, the United States Supreme Court in a unanimous decision said NO in Helsinn Healthcare S. A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,
Being a patent lawyer is a profession that can be complex and contentious. But what a patent lawyer really does is tell stories about people who make new things. This presentation is a story about innovation - the almost mystical force behind our human penchant for making new things. Because patent lawyers have a creative license to be their own lexicographers in the stories they tell.
Patents are the IP tool that societies have developed for encouraging investment in innovation while, at the same time, fostering technology disclosure.
The origins of patent grants trace back to Venice and England when the crown, always looking for new ways to make money, came up with a scheme for granting exclusive rights a tradesman as a way to break the grip the trade guilds held on technology then by their practice of keeping information about new technology as trade secrets that were passed from master to apprentice
Understanding the origins of patents is not just an academic exercise.
All About Intellectual Property, the law, and some of the strategy and business considerations behind developing and leveraging intellectual property in business
Presentation on Patent DNA by Nitin Nair, Brain League IP Services Now BananaIPBananaIP Counsels
Presentation on Patent DNA by Nitin Nair, Brain League IP Services Now BananaIP
Contact Us for Intellectual Property Services
BananaIP Counsels
Regd Office
No.40,3rd Main Road,JC Industrial Estate,
Kanakapura Road,Bangalore – 560 062.
Email: contact@bananaip.com
Telephone: +91-80-26860414 /24/34
Attorneys Mauricio Uribe and Hironori Kubota hosted a webinar introducing a detailed discussion of strategic considerations for patent prosecution in the United States.
America Invents Act (AIA).
Prior Art and Exceptions.
AIA First Inventor to File with Grace (FTFG).
Suggested Post-AIA Filing Strategies.
The Future if IP.
Patent Quality.
Patent Terms.
US Patents and Lawsuits.
America Invents Act (AIA) Patent Scenarios.
AIA First Inventor to File with Grace (FTFG).
Suggested Post-AIA Filing Strategies.
Future of IP.
A Patent Troll Problem.
U.S. Patents and Lawsuits.
Drones.
Flying Saucers.
Early Drones.
Gaming Drones.
Drone Market.
US Regulatory Landscape.
What is IP?
Offensive IP Tools.
Good Patenting.
Freedom to Operate (FTO).
IP Insurance.
UP Patents and Lawsuits.
America Invents Act (AIA).
First-Inventor-to-File (FITF).
"PTAB" Patent Death Squad.
The Future of IP.
For Effective Filing Dates and Other AIA Best Practices.
Big Changes.
Comparisons.
First-Inventor-to-File (FITF).
Mind the Gap.
Effective Filing Date (EFD).
AIA Team Exemption.
Suggested FITF Strategies.
Double Patenting.
Suggested AIA Strategies.
Advanced Practice Under the American Invents Act (AIA).
Post Issuance Proceedings.
Kill Rates.
IPX.
Review Proceedings.
Insights and Lessons.
Trial Timeline.
What's Next?
AIA Overview.
Fee Changes.
Transitions.
Changes.
Art Exceptions.
First-Inventor-to-File (FITF).
First Inventor to File with Grace (FTFG).
Scope of Patent Filing.
Suggested Strategies.
Timeline.
Post Issuance Proceedings.
Inter Partes Reexam (IPR) Proceedings.
Comparison.
FTFG Scenarios.
American Invents Act (AIA) Overview.
AIA Transitions.
Changes.
Post Issuance Proceedings.
What You Need For a Patent.
Comparisons.
First Inventor to File with Grace (FTFG).
Prosecution Under FTFG.
More Complicates than 3D Chess?
America Invents Act (AIA).
Timetable for AIA Transitions.
Changes.
Proceedings.
Review.
Art.
First Inventor to File with Grace (FTFG).
Tips/Pointers for Transitions.
What's Next?
The Leahy-Smith American Invents Act: More Complicated than 3D Chess?Patterson Thuente IP
American Invents Act (AIA).
Changes.
Proceedings.
Art.
How Long Will it Take to Cut Over to AIA?
How Much Will it Take to Get Up to Speed on the AIA?
First-to-File with Grace (FTFG).
Tips & Pointers for Transition.
What's Next?
Military Commissions details LtCol Thomas Jasper as Detailed Defense CounselThomas (Tom) Jasper
Military Commissions Trial Judiciary, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Notice of the Chief Defense Counsel's detailing of LtCol Thomas F. Jasper, Jr. USMC, as Detailed Defense Counsel for Abd Al Hadi Al-Iraqi on 6 August 2014 in the case of United States v. Hadi al Iraqi (10026)
Car Accident Injury Do I Have a Case....Knowyourright
Every year, thousands of Minnesotans are injured in car accidents. These injuries can be severe – even life-changing. Under Minnesota law, you can pursue compensation through a personal injury lawsuit.
In 2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs established a committee led by Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh, former Vice Chancellor of National Law University (NLU), Delhi. This committee was tasked with reviewing the three codes of criminal law. The primary objective of the committee was to propose comprehensive reforms to the country’s criminal laws in a manner that is both principled and effective.
The committee’s focus was on ensuring the safety and security of individuals, communities, and the nation as a whole. Throughout its deliberations, the committee aimed to uphold constitutional values such as justice, dignity, and the intrinsic value of each individual. Their goal was to recommend amendments to the criminal laws that align with these values and priorities.
Subsequently, in February, the committee successfully submitted its recommendations regarding amendments to the criminal law. These recommendations are intended to serve as a foundation for enhancing the current legal framework, promoting safety and security, and upholding the constitutional principles of justice, dignity, and the inherent worth of every individual.
ALL EYES ON RAFAH BUT WHY Explain more.pdf46adnanshahzad
All eyes on Rafah: But why?. The Rafah border crossing, a crucial point between Egypt and the Gaza Strip, often finds itself at the center of global attention. As we explore the significance of Rafah, we’ll uncover why all eyes are on Rafah and the complexities surrounding this pivotal region.
INTRODUCTION
What makes Rafah so significant that it captures global attention? The phrase ‘All eyes are on Rafah’ resonates not just with those in the region but with people worldwide who recognize its strategic, humanitarian, and political importance. In this guide, we will delve into the factors that make Rafah a focal point for international interest, examining its historical context, humanitarian challenges, and political dimensions.
NATURE, ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.pptxanvithaav
These slides helps the student of international law to understand what is the nature of international law? and how international law was originated and developed?.
The slides was well structured along with the highlighted points for better understanding .
A "File Trademark" is a legal term referring to the registration of a unique symbol, logo, or name used to identify and distinguish products or services. This process provides legal protection, granting exclusive rights to the trademark owner, and helps prevent unauthorized use by competitors.
Visit Now: https://www.tumblr.com/trademark-quick/751620857551634432/ensure-legal-protection-file-your-trademark-with?source=share
1. June 26, 20181
Patent Infringement And Validity Analysis
Bradley Thorson
August 22, 2011
What are the Parts of a Patent
Claim Construction
Infringement
Invalidity
Design
7. What are the Parts of a Patent?
■ Specification
Background
Summary of Invention
Detailed Description
8. What are the Parts of a Patent?
Claims (define invention)
9. Claim Construction
Claims of a patent are what defines the patented invention.
First step in determining infringement or validity of a patent is always
interpreting the claims.
Since claim interpretation will normally control the remainder of the decisional
process, “[a]nalysis begins with a key legal question - what is the invention
claimed?” Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567 (Fed.
Cir. 1987))
“The name of the game is the claim.”
In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed.Cir.1998).
June 26, 20189
11. Claim Construction
Preamble
Initial part of the claim that sets the context for the invention
Generally not limiting (with certain exceptions)
June 26, 201811
1. A window assembly . . .
12. Claim Construction
Transitional Phrase
“comprising”
• Means at least the following items as listed in the body of the claim, possibly with the
addition of other things not listed.
• By far the most common, because it is the broadest.
“consisting of”
• Means the following items as listed in the body of the claim, no more and no less.
• Very narrow - rarely used.
“consisting essentially of”
• Means “substantially the following items” with some possible variations.
• Normally used only for chemical and pharmaceutical inventions.
June 26, 201812
16. Claim Construction
Basic rules for interpreting the words of the claim:
The starting point for claim construction is always determining the
“ordinary meaning” of the terms.
If a term is explicitly defined in the specification, that definition governs.
Otherwise, terms mean what one of ordinary skill in the relevant art would
interpret them to mean, in the context of how they are used in the
specification and claims.
The specification is “the single best guide” to determining the meaning of
words used in the claim.
But . . . must take care not to “read in” the specifics of what is described in
the specification and drawings if not included in the claims.
Dictionaries, other patents, reference books, expert testimony, etc. can be
used only if the specification does not provide enough clarity as to what
terms mean.
June 26, 201816
18. Infringement
compare your product to other’s claimThe product is compared to the properly construed
claims.
A claim is infringed only if each and every limitation listed
in the claim is found in the accused device.
19. Infringement
compare your product to other’s claimA claim that reads:
A device, comprising:
A;
B; and
C.
Is infringed by a device including A, B, C, and D
but is not infringed by a device including only A, B, and D.
20. Patentability –
compare your claims to prior art
Infringement
U.S. Patent No. 5,123,456
to Green et al.
1. A writing instrument, comprising:
a hollow wooden shaft; and
a graphite core disposed in the shaft,
with an end protruding from an end of
the shaft.
Accused Product:
Does not matter
that the accused
device also
includes a ferrule
and an eraser.
21. Patentability –
compare your claims to prior art
Infringement
U.S. Patent No. 5,123,456
to Green et al.
1. A writing instrument, comprising:
a hollow wooden shaft; and
a graphite core disposed in the shaft,
with an end protruding from an end of
the shaft.
Accused Product:
If the shaft of the
accused product is
plastic, or the core is
not “graphite,” then no
infringement.
22. Patentability –
compare your claims to prior art
Infringement – Importance of Claim Construction
U.S. Patent No. 5,123,456
to Green et al.
1. A writing instrument, comprising:
a hollow wooden shaft; and
a graphite core disposed in the
shaft, with an end protruding from
an end of the shaft.
If the specification specifically defines
“graphite” as “a carbon compound
containing not less than 95% carbon,”
then a product with a core of only 85%
carbon will not infringe.
If the specification does not define
“graphite,” then it means what one of
ordinary skill in the art would think it
means.
Without a specific definition, even if the
specification only describes cores with
95% carbon content, that does not allow
the claim to be read as only covering
cores with 95% carbon content.
23. Patentability –
compare your claims to prior art
A claimed invention is patentable if:
The claimed invention is not disclosed exactly in every detail
in the “prior art.” (Novel)
The claimed invention is not obvious in view of the “prior
art.” (Non-obvious)
The claimed invention is described in the specification of the
patent in sufficient detail as to enable one of ordinary skill in
the art to make and use the invention. (Description and
enablement)
The claims clearly and distinctly define the claimed invention
(Definiteness).
Invalidity
24. Patentability –
compare your claims to prior art
Even if a patent has been issued by the USPTO, the claims of
the patent can be “invalid” if it is later shown that they do not
meet the requirements for patentability.
For example, if a “prior art” document is later found that
discloses every limitation of a claim, then the claim is invalid.
But . . . U.S. Patents are presumed valid. 35 U.S.C. § 282.
So, after a patent is issued, patent claims can be invalidated
only upon “clear and convincing evidence” that the claim is
invalid.
Invalidity
25. Patentability –
compare your claims to prior art
What is “prior art?”
35 U.S.C. § 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and
loss of right to patent.
• A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
• (a) the invention was known or used by others in this
country, or patented or described in a printed
publication in this or a foreign country, before the
invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
• (b) the invention was patented or described in a
printed publication in this or a foreign country or in
public use or on sale in this country, more than one
year prior to the date of the application for patent in the
United States . . .
Invalidity
26. Patentability –
compare your claims to prior art
Anticipation
If a single prior art document or publicly disclosed device or
process discloses every limitation of a claim, then the claim
is “anticipated” and is invalid.
Must be able to prove the document or public disclosure
actually is “prior” to the invention.
Proof must be “clear and convincing.”
Witness testimony generally is not enough – must have
some other corroborating evidence.
Invalidity
27. Invalidity - Anticipation
U.S. Patent No. 123,456
to Smith (1850)
U.S. Patent No. 6,123,456
to Yellow et al. (1990)
1. A writing instrument,
comprising:
a hollow wooden
shaft; and
a graphite core
disposed in the
shaft, with an end
protruding from an
end of the shaft.
28. Patentability –
compare your claims to prior art
Obviousness
35 U.S.C. 103 Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter.
• (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically
disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in
which the invention was made.
Subject matter does not need to be disclosed in a single
prior art reference – two or more references can be
combined.
But . . . there must be a logical reason that one of ordinary
skill would have combined the references.
Invalidity
29. Invalidity - Obviousness
U.S. Patent No. 123,456
to Smith (1850)
U.S. Patent No. 6,123,456
to Yellow et al. (1990)
1. A writing instrument,
comprising:
a hollow wooden shaft;
a graphite core disposed in the
shaft, with an end protruding
from an end of the shaft; and
an eraser attached to an
opposite end of the shaft.
U.S. Patent No. 456,789
to Jones(1890)
Need logical reason that one of
ordinary skill would have
combined the teachings.
30. Designs
Granted on ornamental design of a
functional object
Claim of a design patent is actually
the drawings.
In other words, a design patent
covers only what is shown in the
figures.
June 26, 201830
31. Designs
Portions shown in solid lines are
claimed and must be considered in
determining infringement.
Portions shown in “dashed lines”
are not claimed, and often just
serve to show the environment in
which the claimed product is used.
June 26, 201831
32. Design Patent Infringement
“[I]f, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a
purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same,
if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer,
inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other, the
first one patented is infringed by the other.”
Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 528 (1871).
June 26, 201832
33. Design Patent Infringement
Infringement is determined by comparing the figures of the patent to the accused
product.
If an “ordinary observer” would take the accused product for what is depicted in the
figures, there is infringement.
Identity of the “ordinary observer” is critical
Harder to show infringement if the buyer of the product is sophisticated, and can
be expected to notice small differences.
A second step of the analysis requires comparison of both the figures of the patent
and the accused device to the closest prior art.
If the accused device appears to be closer to the prior art than the figures of the
patent, there may not be infringement.
June 26, 201833
34. Thank You
Bradley J. Thorson, Esq.
Patterson Thuente Christensen Pedersen P.A.
4800 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
thorson@ptslaw.com
612.349.5756
June 26, 201834