What It Might Mean for the Average Practitioner.
Patent Reform Updates.
Current Status.
Patent Reform Act.
First Inventor to File.
Rules.
Patent Quality.
Kappos' Visions for the USPTO.
Changes in the New and Improved Version.
Leahy-Smith American Invents Act of 2011.
First Inventor to File with Grace(FTFG).
Changes Already in Place.
Changes for Next Year (2012).
Putting it into Practice.
What's Next for the AIA?
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?
Leahy-Smith American Invents Act of 2011.
First Inventor to File with Grace(FTFG).
Changes Already in Place.
Changes for Next Year (2012).
Putting it into Practice.
What's Next for the AIA?
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?
Claiming Strategies for Medical Device Patent Application PLUS - Bonus Update...Patterson Thuente IP
Good Application Practice.
Good Patent Claiming.
Claims.
Avoiding Contributory/Indirect Infringement.
US Patent Reform 2011.
FTFG.
First-to-Publish.
Introducing a Whole Gaggle of PIPs.
Coming Soon: Lots More Rules!
Topics covered in this month’s patent group presentation include information about the current backlog of patent applications at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), new rules regarding derivation proceedings, a practice tip for releasing search results to the European Patent Office, proposed USPTO ethics rules codifying with the ABA rules, patentability of computer software, and recent cases about inter partes reexamination.
Below is a presentation examining whether the AIA will change patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. The presentation explores aspects of the AIA, including changes to joinder, Post Grant Review and Inter Partes Review and how each of these changes in the law may impact patent litigation, particular with regard to the Eastern District of Texas.
US patent law overview.
Changes in the USPTO.
Proposed patent reform.
Developments in U.S. case law.
International developments.
Inequitable conduct and IDS.
Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Post-Grant Patent Proceedings: Are th...WilmerHale
From The Georgetown University Law Center Conference: The Changing Patent Landscape held on March 23, 2015.
This presentation covers:
- Statistics on Post-Grant Proceedings
- Rule Changes for Post-Grant Proceedings
- IPR as Part of a Litigation Strategy
- Patent Owner’s Strategy in an IPR
- IPR Termination
Legislative Process.
Current Proposals.
Current Status.
First Inventor to File.
Derivation Proceedings.
Enhanced Damages.
Inequitable Conduct.
Interlocutory Review of a Claim.
Updates.
Claiming Strategies for Medical Device Patent Application PLUS - Bonus Update...Patterson Thuente IP
Good Application Practice.
Good Patent Claiming.
Claims.
Avoiding Contributory/Indirect Infringement.
US Patent Reform 2011.
FTFG.
First-to-Publish.
Introducing a Whole Gaggle of PIPs.
Coming Soon: Lots More Rules!
Topics covered in this month’s patent group presentation include information about the current backlog of patent applications at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), new rules regarding derivation proceedings, a practice tip for releasing search results to the European Patent Office, proposed USPTO ethics rules codifying with the ABA rules, patentability of computer software, and recent cases about inter partes reexamination.
Below is a presentation examining whether the AIA will change patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. The presentation explores aspects of the AIA, including changes to joinder, Post Grant Review and Inter Partes Review and how each of these changes in the law may impact patent litigation, particular with regard to the Eastern District of Texas.
US patent law overview.
Changes in the USPTO.
Proposed patent reform.
Developments in U.S. case law.
International developments.
Inequitable conduct and IDS.
Georgetown Univ. Law Center Conference: Post-Grant Patent Proceedings: Are th...WilmerHale
From The Georgetown University Law Center Conference: The Changing Patent Landscape held on March 23, 2015.
This presentation covers:
- Statistics on Post-Grant Proceedings
- Rule Changes for Post-Grant Proceedings
- IPR as Part of a Litigation Strategy
- Patent Owner’s Strategy in an IPR
- IPR Termination
Legislative Process.
Current Proposals.
Current Status.
First Inventor to File.
Derivation Proceedings.
Enhanced Damages.
Inequitable Conduct.
Interlocutory Review of a Claim.
Updates.
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.
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.
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?
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...Massimo Talia
This guide aims to provide information on how lawyers will be able to use the opportunities provided by AI tools and how such tools could help the business processes of small firms. Its objective is to provide lawyers with some background to understand what they can and cannot realistically expect from these products. This guide aims to give a reference point for small law practices in the EU
against which they can evaluate those classes of AI applications that are probably the most relevant for them.
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.
Matthew Professional CV experienced Government LiaisonMattGardner52
As an experienced Government Liaison, I have demonstrated expertise in Corporate Governance. My skill set includes senior-level management in Contract Management, Legal Support, and Diplomatic Relations. I have also gained proficiency as a Corporate Liaison, utilizing my strong background in accounting, finance, and legal, with a Bachelor's degree (B.A.) from California State University. My Administrative Skills further strengthen my ability to contribute to the growth and success of any organization.
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.
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentationseri bangash
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
1. 7/13/20181
Patent Reform Update
What It Might Mean for the Average Practitioner
Brad Pedersen
February 15, 2010
Patent Reform Updates
Current Status
Patent Reform Act
First Inventor to File
Rules
Patent Quality
Kappos’ Visions for the USPTO
Changes in the New and Improved Version
3. Patent Reform Updates
Current Status of new Patent Reform Act
What’s in the new Patent Reform Act
What’s Missing from the new Patent Reform Act
Rulemaking
Appeals Rules
IDS Rules
Patent Quality
July 13, 20183
4. Current Status
Administration is pushing both Senate
(S. 515) and House (HR. 1280) to get
something done sooner rather than later
Reasons behind the push
Need to fix Patent Office funding issues
Desire to take advantage of the political
compromise reached on damages issue
Administration is looking for a relatively
safe legislative victory
Leahy announced last Friday a new
compromise on S. 515 that will be made
public shortly
July 13, 20184
5. What’s in the Patent Reform Act
The old S. 515
(Sen. Leahy et al.)
Amended in Judiciary Committee and
referred to full Senate last April
At least two manager’s markups were
circulated last fall
Hatch pulled support due to watering
down of damages provisions and failure
to address inequitable conduct
Endorsed by Kappos and Administration
Congressional Budget Office cost
estimate = $3 million to implement bill
from 2010-2019
July 13, 20185
“The Senate has an inherent like of being
courted and wooed like a lifetime
bachelor. It doesn't really want to go
to the altar, it simply wants to be courted
and wooed.” -- U.S. Rep Darrell Issa
6. What’s in the new Patent Reform Act
The new S. 515
(Sen. Leahy and now, many others)
Leahy has reached agreement with the
remaining Senate holdouts
• Changes in reexam and post grant
to get support of Sen. Sessions
• Addition of an inequitable conduct
absolution process to get support
of Sen. Hatch
• Some tweaking to the gatekeeper
damages compromise to get/keep
support of lobbying groups
Public release is being delayed to give
Conyers and the House time to
consider/comment on bill
July 13, 20186
7. What’s in the Patent Reform Act
H.R. 1260
(Reps. Conyers et al.)
Content originally was identical to S. 515
as introduced
• Additional provisions for PTO
studies and reports on the law’s
effects
• Similar version passed in House in
2007; stalled in Senate in 2008
• Key difference now is damages –
apportioned value vs. gatekeeper
Supported by electrical, mechanical, and
software groups
House Judiciary Committee hearings
currently on “time out”—committee vote
not scheduled
July 13, 20187
8. The new Patent Reform Act
Key Proposed Changes
First-inventor-to-file (FITF) system
• FITF with backward-looking 1 year grace period
• Replaces interferences with derivation proceedings
Damages
• Gatekeeper compromise: Judge decides whether each party’s
damages theories are appropriate before trial
• New compromise retains original language of § 284 for measuring
damages
Completely Revamped Inter Partes/Post Grant Reviews
• Both procedures now done by panel of APJs
• Process must be completed, by statute, in 1 year
• Standard changed from SNQ to likelihood of prevailing
• Addresses estoppel, repeats and timing issues
July 13, 20188
9. The new Patent Reform Act
Key Proposed Changes (cont.)
Willful Infringement
• Codifies In re Seagate objectively reckless standard
• Adds other protections, including the “close case” protection
Inequitable Conduct
• Adds Supplemental Examination option that can absolve patent
• Submit previously not considered materials and Office determines
whether there is an SNQ in 3 months
– If not, then certificate of “clean bill of health”
– If so, then ex parte reexam
Funding
• Office gets authority to set fees, but fee diversion is not yet solved
• Creates micro-entity status for 75% fee reduction
July 13, 20189
10. The new Patent Reform Act
Key Proposed Changes (cont.)
Patent Marking
• Limits damages on false marking to proven damage
• Adds options for virtual marking via the Internet
3rd Party Prior Art Submission
• Submissions allowed up to Notice of Allowance
• Must include concise description of relevance and required fee
Other Features not significantly changed from earlier bills
• Assignee filing option
• Prior user rights extended to affiliates
• Venue provisions codifying TS Tech
• Best mode neutered
• PTO telework pilot program
• District court patent specialists pilot program
July 13, 201810
11. First Inventor to File: FITF Will Be Different
July 13, 201811
FIG. 1 – Scenarios where both parties are seeking a patent
(based on hypothetical evaluation of about 200 typical fact patterns)
12. First Inventor to File: FITF Will Be Different
July 13, 201812
FIG. 2 – Scenarios where only 1 party is seeking a patent
(based on hypothetical evaluation of about 200 typical fact patterns)
13. What’s Missing from the new Patent Reform Act?
Problematic Transition Issues
Transition from FTI to FITF based on priority date
• Applications with priority date <1 year after enactment – FTI
• Applications with priority date >1 year after enactment – FITF
Transition from interference to derivation
• 2 year period for remaining interferences to be declared
• Provisions for dealing with bridging situations
Obama’s Golden Patent
Permanent Fix for Fee Diversion (may come in by floor amendment)
Substantive Rule Making Authority
Interlocutory Appeals and Applicant Quality Submissions
July 13, 201813
14. I’m a Patent Attorney
and Patent Reform was my idea
Better Inter Partes/Post Grant System
run by APJs with statutory time limits
Better FITF without a springing public
disclosure exception
Better Transition from FTI to FITF
July 13, 201814
15. Rulemaking
Rules on claims and continuations rescinded
(Tafas v. Kappos, 541 F. Supp. 2d 805 (E.D. Va. 2008))
“Continuation Rule” and “RCE Rule” would have permitted
only two continuation applications and one request for
continued examination per application family
“Claims Rule” would have permitted an applicant to file 5
independent claims and 25 total claims per application
USPTO announced October 2009 that it will rescind the
claiming and continuations rules package !!!!
The “Rest of the Story”
Federal Circuit granted motion for dismissal of appeal on
November 13, 2009, but denied motion to vacate
Tafas is still pursuing injunction on remand at District Court
Tafas needs to win in order to collect attorneys fees
July 13, 201815
16. Appeals Rules
Appeals Rules Status
Roundtable held in January
Latest round of Comments closed in February
Expect the Final Rule Package (II) by summer
Reasons for the Rule Changes
Increased backlog
Increased uniformity
Judge Fleming’s “ships passing in the night” problem
Biggest Concern
BPAI has changed standard of review—must show Examiner error
Biggest Benefit
BPAI will be in charge of reviewing whether briefs meet technicalities
July 13, 201816
17. IDS Rules
IDS Rules
Limit of 25 cited references on a PTO-1449
If > 25 cited references, then an ESD (Examination Support
Document) was required
IDS Rules had gotten to last step of process, but were held up with
change of administrations
No currently announced plans to reanimate the old IDS Rule package;
however, the notes in the Request for Comments on Patent Quality
still contains hints that the Office considers best practice to be a
limited number of cited references
Hopefully, any new rules would be issued only in conjunction with an
attempt by the Office to exert more control over inequitable conduct
and document management in terms of related cases citations
July 13, 201817
18. Patent Quality
USPTO request for public comment on patent quality
Comments due by March 8th
Interested in:
Prior Art
Comprehensive Initial Application
Comprehensive First Office Action
Comprehensive and Clear Responses to Office Action
Patent Quality Measurements
Probably no new rules directly on patent quality
Likely to see new forms of quality measures
Hopefully, we see continued focus on customer service
July 13, 201818
19. Kappos’ Vision for the USPTO
USPTO is re-engineering its internal processes in attempt to reduce delays
USPTO is re-engineering its quality measures and the statistics it will use to
report quality
First Action Interview program increases chances of a first action allowance
USPTO Directors blog: www.uspto.gov/blog
PCT and international issues will play a central role in USPTO policy
July 13, 201819
“In taking the actions we are announcing today, we hope to engage the
applicant community more effectively on improvements that will help
make the USPTO more efficient, responsive and transparent to the
public.”
-- David Kappos, Director of the USPTO, October 9, 2009
20. 7/13/201820
Changes in the New and Improved Version of S. 515
*Information in the H.R. 1260 and Old S. 515 columns was adapted from IPO’s Patent Reform Legislation Comparison Chart
21. 7/13/201821
Changes in the New and Improved Version of S. 515
*Information in the H.R. 1260 and Old S. 515 columns was adapted from IPO’s Patent Reform Legislation Comparison Chart
22. 7/13/201822
Changes in the New and Improved Version of S. 515
*Information in the H.R. 1260 and Old S. 515 columns was adapted from IPO’s Patent Reform Legislation Comparison Chart
23. 7/13/201823
Changes in the New and Improved Version of S. 515
*Information in the H.R. 1260 and Old S. 515 columns was adapted from IPO’s Patent Reform Legislation Comparison Chart
24. 7/13/201824
Changes in the New and Improved Version of S. 515
*Information in the H.R. 1260 and Old S. 515 columns was adapted from IPO’s Patent Reform Legislation Comparison Chart
25. 7/13/201825
Changes in the New and Improved Version of S. 515
*Information in the H.R. 1260 and Old S. 515 columns was adapted from IPO’s Patent Reform Legislation Comparison Chart
26. 7/13/201826
Changes in the New and Improved Version of S. 515
*Information in the H.R. 1260 and Old S. 515 columns was adapted from IPO’s Patent Reform Legislation Comparison Chart
27. 7/13/201827
Changes in the New and Improved Version of S. 515
*Information in the H.R. 1260 and Old S. 515 columns was adapted from IPO’s Patent Reform Legislation Comparison Chart