November 2011 Patent Group Luncheon

2,402 views

Published on

Topics covered in this month’s patent group presentation include prioritized examination, discussion of a case regarding the De Novo standard of review, and discussion of recent case law following the Bilski decision.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,402
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1,749
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

November 2011 Patent Group Luncheon

  1. 1. Prosecution Group Luncheon November, 2011
  2. 2. Prioritized Examination—37 CFR 1.102 <ul><li>“ No fault” special status under 1.102(e) </li></ul><ul><li>Request made with filing of nonprovisional case </li></ul><ul><li>Electronically filed (if utility) </li></ul><ul><li>Fees must be included with filing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Filing, search, examination, publication fees </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Prioritized examination ($4800) and processing fees ($130) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Maximum 4 independent, 30 total claims </li></ul><ul><li>1 year from grant of status to final disposition, but not through appeal or interference </li></ul><ul><li>Status lost with time-extension or excess claims </li></ul>
  3. 3. De Novo Claim Construction <ul><li>Federal Circuit chooses not to revisit de novo review of claim construction (from en banc Cybor decision) </li></ul><ul><li>Three of 11 judges dissent: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Claim construction is the single most important event in the course of a patent litigation,&quot; but &quot;rules are still ill-defined and inconsistently applied, even by us&quot;  </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Argues that majority followed its own ideas, not Phillips v. AWH , &quot;[c]hanging the plain meaning of a claim term to tailor its scope to what the panel believes was the actual invention“ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Asserts a split remains: whether scope should be limited to &quot;what the inventor actually invented&quot; or construed according to plain meaning to POSA (informed but not dictated by the specification) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co. (Fed. Cir. 2011) </li></ul>
  4. 4. Bilski -Palooza! <ul><li>Ultramercial v. Hulu (FC 2011): internet distribution of product (e.g. movie), including (1) offering for sale and (2) free delivery if viewer agrees to view ad </li></ul><ul><li>FC: OK per Section 101 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;practical application&quot; of idea that &quot;advertising can serve as a currency“ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;[v]iewing the subject matter as a whole, the invention involves an extensive computer interface“ </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Petition for en banc rehearing, alleging </li></ul><ul><ul><li>failure to follow Bilski </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>inconsistency in application of law in recent decisions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>division within FC as to patent-eligibility jurisprudence </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Mayo v. Prometheus under Supreme Court review </li></ul><ul><li>Four other pending Section 101 cases </li></ul>

×