Patent Term Adjustment
|
|
- Scot Rich
- 7 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 AIPLA Spring Meeting May 16, 2014 Philadelphia, Pa. Robert Ashbrook 2014 Dechert LLP
2 Patent Term History 1790: 14 years 1836: 14 years plus 7 year extension 1861: 17 years 1984: Hatch Waxman (patent term extension) 1995: GATT (20 years from application) 1999: AIPA (patent term adjustment) 2010: Wyeth v. Kappos 2012: Regulatory change for B delay pending BPAI appeals 2013: America Invents Act Final rule adopted May 15, : AIA Technical Corrections Act 2014: Novartis v. Lee 2014?: Goodlatte bill? 2
3 Beginning of a Patent s Term for a term beginning on the date on which the patent issues. 35 U.S.C. 154(a)(2) Every Tuesday Term begins just after 12:00 a.m., eastern time. Encore Wire Corp. v. Southwire Corp. No. 3:10-cv-86, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22073, 2011 WL (N.D. Ga. Mar. 4, 2011) Provisional rights. 35 U.S.C. 154(d) 3
4 Patent Term Flowchart 4
5 Baseline Patent Term Pre-GATT or GATT (17 or 20 years) June 8, 1995, is the key date Expired before June 8, 1995? Pre-GATT term (17 years). 35 U.S.C. 154(c)(1). Pending or in force on June 8, 1995? Longer of pre-gatt or GATT term. 35 U.S.C. 154(c)(1) Filed on or after June 8, 1995? GATT term (20 years). 35 U.S.C. 154(a)(2) 5
6 Baseline Patent Term Pre-GATT or GATT (17 or 20 years) US 5,475,064 Pending on June 8, 1995 Greater of the pre-gatt or GATT term 6
7 Pre-GATT Patent Term Issue date plus 17 years December 12, 1995, plus 17 years = December 12,
8 GATT Patent Term Specific reference plus 20 years December 21, 1994, plus 20 years = December 21, 2014 Longer of the two terms is December 21,
9 GATT Patent Term Specific reference plus 20 years Same phrase used in 35 U.S.C. 120 Only one of several requirements for 120 priority Where to find a specific reference Priority under 119, 365(a), 365(b), 386(a), or 386(b) is not considered Provisionals Foreign national applications International applications 9
10 Pre-GATT Patent Term Surprising results when applications filed before June 8, 1995, spend long periods in prosecution US 7,018,407 filed in 1981 Longer of pre-gatt or GATT 19 year long interference Issued March 28, 2006 Pre-GATT term expires in years after filing! 10
11 GATT Patent Term Surprising results when applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, claim early priority dates US 7,604,811 filed in 1996 GATT term applies Specific reference to 1984 Expires years before issuance! What client would waste money prosecuting this patent?!? Shout-out: 1201Tuesday.com 11
12 Last Day of a Patent s Term Hypothetical: Application filed Jan. 1, 1995 and patent issues Jan. 1, Pre-GATT term is 17 years from grant GATT term ends 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed What is the last day the patent can be enforced? January 1, 2015? Term length is 20 years and 1 day December 31, 2014? Term length is 20 years exactly The answer is unclear 12
13 PTA focuses on the duration of the term, not the issue and expiration dates GATT term is the same as pre-gatt term if prosecution takes 3 years (for an original app.) GATT term is longer if prosecution is faster 13
14 GATT term is shorter if prosecution is slower PTA adjusts for some delays in prosecution Adjustment is to the expiration date 14
15 PTA implemented by the American Inventors Protection Act. 35 U.S.C. 154(b); 37 C.F.R Applies to utility applications filed on or after May 29, 2000 Guarantees against three kinds of prosecution delay A delay. 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(A) B delay. 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B) C delay. 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(C) Deduction for overlapping delay Deduction for applicant delay 15
16 A Delay A delay guarantees against four specific PTO response delays 1. An initial office action within 14 months of the filing date. 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(A)(i) The priority date is irrelevant (i.e., for divisionals, cons, CIPs, etc.) For international applications, time is measured from entry into the US national stage AIA Technical Corrections Act for patents issued after Jan. 14, 2013 USPTO will begin to implement on May 20, 2014 Restrictions do count as a response A notice to file missing parts does not count as a response 16
17 A Delay A delay guarantees against four specific PTO response delays 2. Response within 4 months to a reply to an office action Vacated and re-issued response may count. U. Mass. v. Kappos 3. Response within 4 months after a PTAB decision 4. Issuance within 4 months after payment of the issue fee Day-for-day adjustment of the expiration date for every day that a PTO response is delayed 17
18 B Delay B delay is a backstop guarantee against prosecution lasting more than three years Diligent applicants should get at least the pre-gatt term Day-for-day adjustment of the expiration date for every day beyond three years it takes the patent to issue Three years measured from the filing date The priority date is irrelevant (i.e., for divisionals and cons) For international applications, time is measured from entry into the US national stage 18
19 B Delay Three exceptions to B delay: 1. Time consumed by continued examination pursuant to a request for continued examination. 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B)(i) 2. Time consumed by interferences, derivation proceedings, secrecy orders, PTAB appeals, and civil actions. 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B)(ii) For applications where a notice of allowance is mailed on or after September 17, 2012, the time consumed by a PTAB appeal changed from when a notice of appeal was filed to when a brief is filed 3. Delays requested by the applicant. 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B)(iii) 19
20 B Delay 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(1)(B) Novartis: exceptions are exceptions to the trigger USPTO: exceptions are exceptions to the remedy Trigger Exceptions Remedy 20
21 B Delay The RCE exception was litigated in Novartis v. Lee, 740 F.3d 593 (Fed. Cir. 2014) PTO: all time from filing an RCE until issuance is consumed by continued examination pursuant to an RCE Held, the time after a notice of allowance is not consumed by continued examination Federal Circuit formula: time from filing until issuance, minus time from RCE to allowance, minus three years, equals B delay Hundreds of cases currently backlogged 21
22 C Delay C delay is a guarantee against delays for: Interference or derivation proceeding Secrecy order Successful PTAB appeal ( success is narrowly construed) Successful civil action B and C delay work in tandem for appeals and civil actions No B delay allowed, but C delay allowed if successful 22
23 Overlap Patentee cannot benefit from an overlap of A, B, or C delay. 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(A) USPTO: Any A delay necessarily contributes to B delay, so patentees get whichever is greater, not both Wyeth v. Kappos, 591 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2010): Overlap means two delays occurring on the same calendar day 23
24 Applicant Delay Deduction for the period of time during which the applicant failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution. 35 U.S.C. 154(c) Statutory applicant delay: when the applicant takes more than 3 months to respond to any rejection, etc. Any shortened statutory reply date is irrelevant USPTO has substantive rulemaking authority to define other instances of applicant delay 24
25 Applicant Delay Regulatory applicant delays: Applicant requests for delay. 37 C.F.R (c)(1) & (2) Abandonment. 37 C.F.R (c)(3) & (4) Conversion of a provisional app. 37 C.F.R (c)(5) Amendment requiring a supplemental office action. 37 C.F.R (c)(6) & (9) Preliminary amendment or amendment after a PTAB decision, up to one month before an office action, resulting in a supplemental office action 25
26 Applicant Delay Regulatory applicant delays: Reply with an omission and supplemental reply. 37 C.F.R (c)(7) & (8) An IDS filed after a reply is the most common source of delay Supplemental amendments, terminal disclaimers, etc. But preliminary amendments nor interview summaries Any paper filed after a notice of allowance, unless filed with the issue fee. 37 C.F.R (c)(10) Rule 312 amendments, status request, etc. 26
27 Applicant Delay Regulatory applicant delays: Extension for an appeal briefs. 37 C.F.R (c)(11) PTO closed this loophole for applications allowed on or after September 17, 2012 Continuation applications. 37 C.F.R (c)(12) No carryover of PTA from before the filing date How and how much applicant delay is assessed varies by subsection 27
28 Applicant Delay Regulatory applicant delays: Extension for an appeal briefs. 37 C.F.R (c)(11) PTO closed this loophole for applications allowed on or after September 17, 2012 Continuation applications. 37 C.F.R (c)(12) No carryover of PTA from before the filing date. 28
29 Applicant Delay The pernicious effect of applicant delay: Delays issuance Accelerates expiration Effect upon clients? Effect upon your practice? 29
30 Calculation of PTA: add A delay plus B delay plus C delay minus overlap minus applicant delay equals total patent term adjustment Total PTA is added to the baseline term 30
31 Example Date Event A delay B delay Overlap Ap. delay Comments Provisional filed Provisional has no effect on PTA Utility app. Filed Baseline term expires Restriction 306 days month A delay Election days Statutory applicant delay Non-final OA 0 days PTO gets 4 months to act Amendment - 59 days - 90 days B delay begins to accrue Final OA 31 days 153 days 31 days - 4-month A delay, overlapping days RCE - 92 days - - B delay stops accruing IDS days 1.704(c)(8) applicant delay Allowance 0 days Rule 312 amend days - - Novartis would restart B delay amend. entry - 30 days - 30 days 1.704(c)(10). Novartis B delay? Issue fee paid - 31 days - 0 days Issue date 31 days 153 days 31 days - 4-month A delay; overlapping days TOTAL for each column: days days - 62 days days = 705 days of PTA Jan. 1, days = Dec. 6,
32 Process Preliminary calculation with notice of allowance B delay will not be included Opportunity to petition for unavoidable statutory applicant delay. 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(3)(C) Final calculation on the face of the patent USPTO computer program calculates thousands each week. It does not account for every circumstance! 32
33 Process Pre-AIA, applicants could petition to correct the preliminary calculation, then petition after issuance, then file a civil action Post-AIA, patentees must petition for a correction (within 2 months after issue, extendable). 37 C.F.R (b) Changes made via a certificate of correction After a decision, a patentee has 180 days to file a civil action in the E.D. Va. 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(4) Otherwise, the PTO determination stands. Novartis v. Lee, 740 F.3d 593 (Fed. Cir. 2014) 33
34 Odds and Ends The PTO has 4 months to respond, but applicants have only 3 months to respond Certificates of mailing do not count for applicant delay Applicants can use the weekend and holiday rule There is a duty of candor in post-allowance PTA petition practice Petitions must include the correct PTA. 37 C.F.R (b)(2)(i) 34
35 Strategy Does the client want postpone expiration, instead of obtaining a patent ASAP? File a provisional Wait 3 months to respond to any office action to maximize B delay Pay the issue fee quickly (unless B delay is accruing) Avoid applicant delay! Applicant delay postpones issue AND accelerates expiration Appeal instead of filing an RCE if you are confident of success 35
36 Strategy After a restriction, quickly file a divisional Avoid terminal disclaimers if possible Possible to consolidate claims in the application with more PTA? Abandon claims with ODP rejections? Abandon the prior application if it has less PTA? File contemporaneously to avoid divisionals? Competing considerations for patent term and protection against ODP rejections under 35 U.S.C. 121 Following a restriction, file a divisional ASAP 36
37 Terminal Disclaimers Terminal disclaimers are applied after PTA. 35 U.S.C. 154(b)(2)(b) Terminal disclaimers still matter after GATT PTA can differ between patents in a family Co-ownership requirement Usually found on the face of the patent But printing mistakes get made check the wrapper! 37
38 Terminal Disclaimers What is being disclaimed? Not all disclaimers use the USPTO form Iterative process to determine the prior patent s expiration date 38
39 Terminal Disclaimers Terminal disclaimers work identically for design, utility and plant patents Apple s D677 issued June 29, 2010 and expires June 29, 2024 Apple sues Samsung Apple files a T.D. during litigation! TD over D593,087 D087 issued May 26, 2009 D087 expires May 26, 2023 D677 expires May 26,
40 Patent Term Extension Hatch-Waxman PTE GATT implementation PTE Available from June 8, 1995, to May 28, 2000 Superseded by patent term adjustment Akin to PTA C delay 40
41 Premature Termination Premature terminations appear on PAIR Maintenance fees Expiration at the end of the grace period at 4, 8, or 12 years Beware zombie patents that come back from the dead Revival available for 2 years for unintentional delay Revival available at any time for unavoidable delay 41
42 Premature Termination Disclaimers can be filed at any time The Re-s Reissues Reexaminations (and supplemental examination) Reviews (inter partes, covered business method, post-grant) Judgments 42
43 For further information, visit our website at dechert.com. Right click on chart to edit data Robert Ashbrook Dechert practices as a limited liability partnership or limited liability company other than in Almaty, Dublin, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Tbilisi. Ut Malesuada Praesent Dictum Eros Sit Amet Varius Sollicitudin Rhoncus 2014 Robert Ashbrook
USPTO Fees - FY 2003
USPTO Fees - FY 2003 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Effective January 1, 2003 Any fee amount paid on or after January 1, 2003, must be paid in the revised amount. The fees subject to reduction
More informationDepartment of Commerce
Vol. 78 Monday, No. 203 October 21, 2013 Part II Department of Commerce Patent and Trademark Office 37 CFR Parts 1, 3 and 11 Changes To Implement the Patent Law Treaty; Final Rule VerDate Mar2010 09:55
More informationUSPTO PATENT EXAMINATION ACCELERATION PROGRAMS AND PROPOSALS
USPTO PATENT EXAMINATION ACCELERATION PROGRAMS AND PROPOSALS Name Description of Effective Accelerated Pursuant to the Accelerated, an applicant may have an application granted examination status provided
More informationAmerica Invents Act of 2011: First to File Overview. Prof. Robert Merges, UC Berkeley (with help from Prof. John Duffy, Univ. of Va.
America Invents Act of 2011: First to File Overview Prof. Robert Merges, UC Berkeley (with help from Prof. John Duffy, Univ. of Va.) 10.21.2011 Major Substantive Changes Very important major overhaul for
More informationAdvanced Topics in Patent Litigation:
Advanced Topics in Patent Litigation: The New World Order in Patent Enforcement November 19, 2013 Robert W. Ashbrook Martin J. Black Kevin Flannery 2013 Dechert LLP Martin J. Black European Patent Enforcement
More informationQuick Start Guide. EFS-Web epetitions
Quick Start Guide EFS-Web epetitions Table of Contents Introduction... 3 Basic Guidelines for Filing epetitions:... 4 1. epetition Filing Requirements: Request for Withdrawal as Attorney or Agent of Record
More informationPCT PRACTICE International Applications Filed Prior to January 1, 2004
International Applications Filed Prior to January 1, 2004 I. Introduction The PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) is an international agreement for the purpose of unifying and simplifying the procedures for
More informationPatent Litigation Strategy: The Impact of the America Invents Act and the New Post-grant Patent Procedures
Patent Litigation Strategy: The Impact of the America Invents Act and the New Post-grant Patent Procedures Eric S. Walters and Colette R. Verkuil, Morrison & Foerster LLP This Article discusses litigation
More informationConsolidated Patent Rules - November 2015 Update
Consolidated Patent Rules - November 2015 Update Title 37 - Code of Federal Regulations Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights CHAPTER I UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SUBCHAPTER
More informationTITLE I HAGUE AGREEMENT CON- CERNING INTERNATIONAL REGISTRA- TION OF INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS
126 STAT. 1527 Public Law 112 211 112th Congress An Act To implement the provisions of the Hague Agreement and the Patent Law Treaty. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
More informationIn re Cuozzo Speed Technologies: Federal Circuit Decides Appeal Jurisdiction and Standard of Review Issues for AIA Reviews
CLIENT MEMORANDUM In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies: Federal Circuit Decides Appeal Jurisdiction and Standard of Review February 5, 2015 AUTHORS Michael W. Johnson Tara L. Thieme THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT HOLDS
More informationAny Further Reforms Must Be Directed At U.S. Patent Office Operations (Revised)
Much Patent Reform Has Already Taken Place. Any Further Reforms Must Be Directed At U.S. Patent Office Operations (Revised) By Ron D. Katznelson, Ph.D. Presented at The Perfect Storm of Patent Reform?
More informationMaine Cernota & Rardin, Registered Patent Attorneys 547 Amherst St., 3 rd Floor, Nashua, NH 03063 603-886-6100 info@mcr-ip.com
Glossary of IP Terms Term Abstract of the Disclosure (AKA Abstract) America Invents Act (AKA the AIA) Application (patent) Application Number (patent) Assignment Claims Continuation in Part (CIP) Definition
More informationCANADA Patent Rules as amended by SOR/2007-90
CANADA Patent Rules as amended by SOR/2007-90 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. SHORT TITLE 2. INTERPRETATION PART I RULES OF GENERAL APPLICATION 3. Fees 3.01 3.02 3.1 4. 5. Communications 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Entry
More informationConsolidated Patent Laws - May 2015 Update
Consolidated Patent Laws - May 2015 Update United States Code Title 35 - Patents [Editor Note: Updated May 2015. Includes the changes made by the Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 (PLTIA),
More informationHarmonization and Enforcement of USPTO Ethical Standards in the Post-AIA Era
Harmonization and Enforcement of USPTO Ethical Standards in the Post-AIA Era William R. Covey Deputy General Counsel for Enrollment and Discipline United States Patent and Trademark Office Authority for
More informationUSPTO ISSUES FINAL RULES IMPLEMENTING THE PATENT LAW TREATY
USPTO ISSUES FINAL RULES IMPLEMENTING THE PATENT LAW TREATY November 7, 2013 The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has published final rules implementing the Patent Law Treaty (PLT) under Title
More informationThe USPTO: Patent Application and Examination Processes
The USPTO: Patent Application and Examination Processes Ram Shukla Supervisory Patent Examiner 571-272-0735 Ram.shukla@uspto.gov Jeanne Clark Patent Examination Policy Advisor, MPEP 571-272-7714 Jeanne.Clark@uspto.gov
More informationReference Guide to Statutory Provisions and Final Rules Effective on September 16, 2012
Reference Guide to Statutory Provisions and Final Rules Effective on September 16, 2012 1 Table of Contents Inventor s Oath/Declaration Supplemental Examination Preissuance Submissions Citation of Patent
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE MARK T. DINSMORE AND DAVID J. CARUSO 2013-1637 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Serial
More informationBeeser Anticipates and Networking Under IP Network
Paper No. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Apple Inc. Petitioner, v. VirnetX, Inc. and Science Application International Corporation, Patent Owner Patent
More informationAmerica Invents Act: Effective Dates
America Invents Act: Effective s The America Invents Act () contains a general Effective provision in Section 35, which states: Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of this Act shall
More informationOctober 5, 2012. fitf_guidance@uspto.gov
The Honorable David J. Kappos Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office United States Patent and Trademark Office 600 Dulany Street
More informationPatent Reissue. Frequently Asked Questions
Patent Reissue Frequently Asked Questions Patent Reissue Frequently Asked Questions 1 Table of Contents 1. WHAT IS A REISSUE PATENT APPLICATION?...2 2. WHAT TYPES OF SITUATIONS CALL FOR A REISSUED PATENT?...2
More informationAttached. Ted Sichelman Professor University of San Diego School of Law 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 (619) 260-7512 [email redacted]
From: Ted Sichelman [email redacted] Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 4:41 PM To: WorldClassPatentQuality Subject: Patent Quality Comment Submission Attached. Ted Sichelman Professor University of San Diego
More informationChapter 500 Receipt and Handling of Mail and Papers
Chapter 500 Receipt and Handling of Mail and Papers 501 Filing Papers With the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 502 Depositing Correspondence 502.01 Correspondence Transmitted by Facsimile 502.02 Correspondence
More informationChallenging Patent Validity in the USPTO: Strategic Considerations in View of the USPTO s Final Rules. Inter Partes Review
Challenging Patent Validity in the USPTO: Strategic Considerations in View of the USPTO s Final Rules Inter Partes Review Presented By: Karl Renner Dorothy Whelan Co-Chairs of Post Grant Practice, Fish
More informationTrials@uspto.gov Paper 28 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC, Petitioner,
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 28 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: May 14, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC, Petitioner, v. CREDIT ACCEPTANCE
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
PCT Applicant s Guide National Phase National Chapter US Page 1 US UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO) AS DESIGNATED (OR ELECTED) OFFICE CONTENTS THE ENTRY INTO THE NATIONAL PHASE SUMMARY
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM OPINION. TIMOTHY R. RICE August 20, 2009 U.S.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA THE HERRICK GROUP & ASSOCIATES LLC : CIVIL ACTION : Plaintiff, : : v. : No. 07-0628 : K.J.T., L.P., : Defendant : MEMORANDUM
More informationStrengthening (or Weakening) Patent Protection in the United States
Strengthening (or Weakening) Patent Protection in the United States Licensing Association (Thailand) Patent Strategies for Licensing October 14, 2014 Paul T. Meiklejohn Dorsey & Whitney LLP 1 2 Techniques
More informationExperiences with the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) at the USPTO
Experiences with the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) at the USPTO Tel Aviv, Israel Paolo Trevisan Patent Attorney Office of Policy and International Affairs United States Patent and Trademark Office 1
More informationEffective Patent Application Drafting and Prosecution in Light of Recent Developments Thomas F. Woods. Topics Covered Background Recent Changes in the Law Before Writing Prior Art Searches Effective Application
More informationPTAB Rearranging the Face of Patent Litigation
PTAB Rearranging the Face of Patent Litigation By Thomas King 1 and Jeffrey Wolfson 2 It has been over a year since the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) began directly accepting petitions from third
More informationPreissuance Submissions
Preissuance Submissions General Question PS1100: What is the effective date for the preissuance submission provision in the AIA? The effective date for the preissuance submission provision in the AIA is
More informationEntrepreneurship. Intellectual property: ideas $$
Entrepreneurship Intellectual property: ideas $$ Please do not share outside the Dartmouth Community without permission. Copyright G. Fairbrothers 2005-2014 All rights reserved. 1 So you have an idea.
More informationDOUBLE PATENTING CONSIDERATIONS by Mark Cohen
DOUBLE PATENTING CONSIDERATIONS by Mark Cohen The Federal Circuit recently issued an important decision with respect to restriction practice and obviousness double patenting in Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals
More informationOne Hundred Twelfth Congress of the United States of America
H. R. 1249 One Hundred Twelfth Congress of the United States of America AT THE FIRST SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the fifth day of January, two thousand and eleven An
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 08-1652 MARGUERITE P. KELLEY, Appellant, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 08-1652 MARGUERITE P. KELLEY, Appellant, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY v. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the
More informationINVALID LIKE OIL AND WATER: US DECISION PLACES MIXED CLAIMS IN JEOPARDY. by Christopher J. Palermo (Foreign Member)
Christopher J. Palermo Hickman Palermo Truong & Becker LLP 2055 Gateway Place Suite 550 San Jose, California 95110 USA Tel. +1-408-414-1202 - cpalermo@hptb-law.com 1,800 words INVALID LIKE OIL AND WATER:
More informationCONFIRMATION NO. 7285 12346 FILING RECEIPT *OC000000057605684* *OC00000057605684
APPLICATION NUMBER FILING or 371(c) DATE GRP ART UNIT FIL FEE REC'D ATTY.DOCKET.NO TOT CLAIMS IND CLAIMS 59/956,507 02/03/2014 3773 1260 45456-0102 12 1 CONFIRMATION NO. 7285 12346 FILING RECEIPT *OC000000057605684*
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION E-WATCH, INC., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION H-12-3314 LOREX CANADA, INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Pending before the
More informationCOMMENTARY. Amending Patent Claims in Inter Partes Review Proceedings
SEPTEMBER 2015 COMMENTARY Amending Patent Claims in Inter Partes Review Proceedings The inter partes review ( IPR ) statute authorizes a patent owner ( PO ) to file, after an IPR has been instituted, one
More informationDear Lead Judge Mitchell:
VIA EMAIL: trialrules2015@uspto.gov Hon. Susan Mitchell Lead Judge, Patent Trial Proposed Rules Mail Stop Patent Board Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria,
More informationThe Appellate Mandate: What It Is and Why It Matters By Jennifer L. Swize
ARTICLES The Appellate Mandate: What It Is and Why It Matters By Jennifer L. Swize Just the other day, a trial team handling post-appeal matters on remand wanted to know the significance of the mandate
More informationClaiming the Benefit of a Prior-Filed Application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, and 365(c)
Claiming the Benefit of a Prior-Filed Application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, and 365(c) Summary: This notice clarifies how benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121 and 365(c) must be presented
More informationTom Streeter Patent Attorney
Tom Streeter Patent Attorney 34281 Doheny Park Rd #2183 Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 (949) 485-4478 www.streeterpatent.com [date] [client name] [street] [city state zip] Re: Patent Representation Agreement
More informationPetition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,502,135 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Paper No. 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RPX Corporation, Petitioner, v. VirnetX, Inc. and Science Application International Corporation, Patent Owner
More informationGUIDELINES FOR THE CUSTOMIZATION OF THE PATENT GUIDE INVENTING THE FUTURE - AN INTRODUCTION TO PATENTS FOR SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES
GUIDELINES FOR THE CUSTOMIZATION OF THE PATENT GUIDE INVENTING THE FUTURE - AN INTRODUCTION TO PATENTS FOR SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES Overall objective The main objective of customizing the guide
More informationInter Partes Review: Claim amendments at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. October 8, 2015
Inter Partes Review: Claim amendments at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board October 8, 2015 Today s presenters Mike Stimson Norton Rose Fulbright San Antonio, Texas Brandy Nolan Norton Rose Fulbright Dallas,
More informationUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER ) NOE RODRIGUEZ, ) Complainant, ) 8 U.S.C. 1324b Proceeding ) v. ) OCAHO Case
More informationFALSE CLAIMS ACT STATUTORY LANGUAGE
33 U.S.C. 3729-33 FALSE CLAIMS ACT STATUTORY LANGUAGE 31 U.S.C. 3729. False claims (a) LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN ACTS. (1) IN GENERAL. Subject to paragraph (2), any person who (A) knowingly presents, or causes
More informationAttorney Depositions in IP Litigation
Attorney Depositions in IP Litigation MIPLA STAMPEDE May 2011 Kevin D. Conneely, Esq. Direct: 612.335.1829 Email: kevin.conneely@leonard.com NO GOOD CAN COME OF THIS Kevin D. Conneely NO GOOD CAN COME
More informationwhat every CHEMIST should know about PATENTS Foreword Disclaimer
what every CHEMIST should know about PATENTS Written and edited by Le-Nhung McLeland for the ACS Joint Board Council Committee on Patents and Related Matters Foreword The American Inventors Protection
More informationIN RE: MAUREEN STRETCH NO. BD-2012-091 S.J.C. Order of Term Suspension entered by Justice Lenk on October 2, 2012. 1 SUMMARY 2
IN RE: MAUREEN STRETCH NO. BD-2012-091 S.J.C. Order of Term Suspension entered by Justice Lenk on October 2, 2012. 1 SUMMARY 2 The respondent received a six-month suspension with conditions for her misconduct
More informationCase 2:07-cv-02175-JPM-dkv Document 85 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 1 of 8
Case 2:07-cv-02175-JPM-dkv Document 85 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION SPINE SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
More informationQuick Start Guide EFS-Web
Quick Start Guide EFS-Web Updated August 17, 2008 Introduction Welcome to EFS-Web, the s safe, simple, and secure means of electronically submitting patent applications and documents. This Quick Start
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF ) TECHNOLOGY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. v. ) 15-10374-FDS ) MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.; ) APPLE, INC.; ELPIDA
More informationGuidance for Industry 180-Day Exclusivity When Multiple ANDAs Are Submitted on the Same Day
Guidance for Industry 180-Day Exclusivity When Multiple ANDAs Are Submitted on the Same Day U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
More informationTelemarketing, E-mail, and Text Message Marketing: Tips to Avoid Lawsuits
Telemarketing, E-mail, and Text Message Marketing: Tips to Avoid Lawsuits LeadsCouncil December 11, 2012 2 pm 3 pm ET Webinar Ari N. Rothman, Esq., Co-Presenter Molly T. Cusson, Esq., Co-Presenter Jonathan
More informationCONFIRMATION NO. 7285 12346 FILING RECEIPT *OC000000057605684* *OC00000057605684
APPLICATION NUMBER FILING or 371(c) DATE GRP ART UNIT FIL FEE REC'D ATTY.DOCKET.NO TOT CLAIMS IND CLAIMS 59/956,507 02/03/2014 3773 1260 45456-0102 12 1 CONFIRMATION NO. 7285 12346 FILING RECEIPT *OC000000057605684*
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION In re: ) Chapter 7 Liquidation ) marchfirst, INC., et al., ) CASE NO. 01 B 24742 ) (Substantively Consolidated)
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division TRIANTAFYLLOS TAFAS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:07cv846 (JCC/TRJ) ) JON W. DUDAS, et al. ) ) Defendants. ) )
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA PLAINTIFF S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION MICHAEL GLENN WHITE, et. al. Plaintiffs v. VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION; et. al., Defendants. Case No. 3:00CV386
More informationPatent and Trademark Searching
Patent and Trademark Searching Provisional v. Non-provisional Applications Provisional Patent Application only serves as a place-holder and a patent will not issue from a Provisional Patent Application.
More informationÆON Fee Schedule 2014 - Patents
ÆON Fee Schedule 2014 - Patents PATENT TYPE DESCRIPTION Affidavit Prepare Affidavit [AFF] $1,200 Receive, docket, and report Notice of Allowance, prepare Post-Allowance check of the file history (includes
More informationProfessional Responsibility Before the Office of Enrollment and Discipline: Cases and Considerations
Professional Responsibility Before the Office of Enrollment and Discipline: Cases and Considerations William R. Covey Deputy General Counsel and Director Office of Enrollment and Discipline United States
More informationBankruptcy and The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
Bankruptcy and The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Rex Anderson 1 Why am I sitting here? I hope Rex is going to show me how to help my clients AND Make money 2 Debtor In Bankruptcy Debtor is insolvent
More informationThe United States as a Member of the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement
The United States as a Member of the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement David R. Gerk Patent Attorney Office of Policy and International Affairs U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 1 Agenda Background on US
More informationE-Commerce Intellectual Property Protection Issues
E-Commerce Intellectual Property Protection Issues Jeffrey D. Myers Peacock Myers, P.C. jmyers@peacocklaw.com http://www.peacocklaw.com (505) 998-1500 Topics IP Law Most Applicable to Internet Copyright
More informationLegal FAQ: Introduction to Patent Litigation
Legal FAQ: Introduction to Patent Litigation by charlene m. morrow and dargaye churnet 1. Who enforces a patent? The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office grants a patent. Contrary to popular belief, a patent
More informationUNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 14-1944
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1944 THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff Appellant, PORTAL HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, L.L.C., Defendant Appellee.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :0-cv-00-BAS-JLB Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WAVE LOCH, INC., a California corporation, LIGHT WAVE, INC., a Utah limited partnership,
More informationPROCEDURES AND COSTS FOR PATENTS
Attorneys At Law Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights Columbus, Ohio 7632 Slate Ridge Blvd. 614/575-2100 Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068-8159 www.ohiopatent.com PROCEDURES AND COSTS FOR PATENTS PLEASE NOTE: This
More informationTHE BUSINESS EDGE GROUP, INC., Appellant, v. CHAMPION MORTGAGE COM- PANY, INC., No. 07-1059 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Page 1 THE BUSINESS EDGE GROUP, INC., Appellant, v. CHAMPION MORTGAGE COM- PANY, INC., No. 07-1059 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 519 F.3d 150; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 5158 January 3,
More informationShareholders Agreements Seminar
Shareholders Agreements Seminar Dechert LLP WALTER DANIEL 20 May 2015 Fast Facts LAWYERS 900+ OFFICES WORLDWIDE 27 FOUNDED 1875 LANGUAGES SPOKEN 38 PRO BONO 84,000 hours worldwide in 2014 CHAIR CEO Andrew
More informationHow To Clarify The Disclosure Of Information From Prohibited Personnel Practices
PUBLIC LAW 112 199 NOV. 27, 2012 126 STAT. 1465 Public Law 112 199 112th Congress An Act To amend chapter 23 of title 5, United States Code, to clarify the disclosures of information protected from prohibited
More informationIntellectual Property Office
Matthew D. Smith Sr. Technology Licensing Officer Technology Business Law 1. WHAT IS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY? PATENTS TRADEMARKS COPYRIGHTS TRADE SECRETS 2. WHY IS PSU INTERESTED IN PROTECTING ITS INTELLECTUAL
More informationF I L E D March 12, 2012
Case: 11-40377 Document: 00511784972 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D March 12, 2012 Lyle
More information2016-CFPB-0006 Document 1 Filed 02/23/2016 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU
2016-CFPB-0006 Document 1 Filed 02/23/2016 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING File No. 2016-CFPB- In the Matter of: CONSENT ORDER FALONI
More informationUnited Video v. Amazon.com: Clear Disavowal of Claim Scope
United Video v. Amazon.com: Clear Disavowal of Claim Scope Today in United Video Properties, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Fed. App x (Fed. Cir. 2014)(Lourie, J.), the Court affirmed a noninfringement ruling where
More informationCollecting Back Taxes: The IRS Statute of Limitations Explained
Collecting Back Taxes: The IRS Statute of Limitations Explained A Practice Essentials CLE Program Presenter: Benjamin A. Stolz, Esq. 1 Copyright 2011 OnePath Practice Management Advisors, LLC Disclaimer
More informationMARVIN B EICKENROHT C/O BUTLER & BINION 1000 LOUISIANA STE 1600 HOUSTON TX 77002-5093 ON PETITION
UNITEDSTATES PATENTAND -EMARK OFFICE commiwlorp- UniW!%tea Patent and Ttadamark O&c P.O. Bo* 3- VA ZslSlUO -.*ga MARVIN B EICKENROHT C/O BUTLER & BINION 1000 LOUISIANA STE 1600 HOUSTON TX 77002-5093 In
More informationPatent Reform: What MedTech Companies Need to Know
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW WWW.GTLAW.COM Patent Reform: What MedTech Companies Need to Know David J. Dykeman, Esq. Patent Attorney & Shareholder Greenberg Traurig, LLP Boston, MA (617) 310-6009
More informationCase: 1:10-cv-01370-BYP Doc #: 48 Filed: 11/12/10 1 of 10. PageID #: <pageid> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 1:10-cv-01370-BYP Doc #: 48 Filed: 11/12/10 1 of 10. PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., ) CASE NO. 1:10
More informationTrials@uspto.gov Paper 26 571-272-7822 Date: June 11, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 26 571-272-7822 Date: June 11, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD IDLE FREE SYSTEMS, INC. Petitioner, v. BERGSTROM, INC. Patent
More informationU. S. PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE
U. S. TRADEMARK LAW FEDERAL STATUTES U. S. PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE November 25, 2013-1- November 25, 2013 TRADEMARK ACT OF 1946, AS AMENDED TITLE I - THE PRINCIPAL REGISTER TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 (15 U.S.C.
More informationINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY UPDATE
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY UPDATE May 2007 1 Hogan & Hartson LLP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY UPDATE Supreme Court Holds That 35 U.S.C. 271(f) Does Not Apply To Golden Master Disks In a decision handed down April
More information`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. Petitioner
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. Petitioner v. LIMESTONE MEMORY SYSTEMS LLC Patent Owner Case IPR. No. Unassigned U.S. Patent
More informationNOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
A FEDERAL COURT ORDERED THIS NOTICE. THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION FROM A LAWYER. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Soutter v. Equifax Information Services, LLC Civil Action No. 3:10-cv-107
More informationCase 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 545 Filed 01/05/16 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-md-0-crb Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN CLEAN DIESEL MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 14-2052 IN RE: EDWARD J. PAJIAN, Debtor-Appellant. Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
More informationHow to Apply for a Patent
How to Apply for a Patent A Guide for FRC and FTC Teams applying for the FIRST Future Innovator Award presented by the Abbott Fund You need not file a patent application on your idea in order to compete
More informationPatent Basics for Non-Patent Attorneys October 11, 2005
The Marin County Bar Association Intellectual Property Section Presents: Patent Basics for Non-Patent Attorneys October 11, 2005 Steven A. Nielsen Registered Patent Attorney USPTO # 54699 Allman & Nielsen,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM. BUCKWALTER, J. May 8, 2002
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION v. NO. 01-0272 M. ROBERT ULLMAN, Defendant. MEMORANDUM BUCKWALTER, J. May
More informationPatent Prosecution Highway (PPH) User Seminar
Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) User Seminar German Patent and Trademark Office July 22, 2014 Maria T. Holtmann Program Director, International Patent Cooperation United States Patent and Trademark Office
More informationDepartment of Commerce
Vol. 77 Tuesday, No. 157 August 14, 2012 Part V Department of Commerce Patent and Trademark Office 37 CFR Part 42 Office Patent Trial Practice Guide; Rule VerDate Mar2010 17:26 Aug 13, 2012 Jkt 226001
More informationREEXAMINATION PRACTICE WITH CONCURRENT DISTRICT COURT PATENT LITIGATION
REEXAMINATION PRACTICE WITH CONCURRENT DISTRICT COURT PATENT LITIGATION Robert Greene Sterne, Kenneth Bass III, Jon Wright & Matt Dowd Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, Washington, DC Copyright 2007, The
More informationCANADIAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE
PCT Applicant s Guide National Phase National Chapter Page 1 NADIAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE AS DESIGNATED (OR ELECTED) OFFICE CONTENTS THE ENTRY INTO THE NATIONAL PHASE SUMMARY THE PROCEDURE IN THE
More informationUnited States of America Takeover Guide
United States of America Takeover Guide Contact Richard Hall Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP rhall@cravath.com Contents Page INTRODUCTION 1 TENDER OFFERS VERSUS MERGERS 1 IN THE BEGINNING 2 REGULATION OF TENDER
More information