Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc. – Defining “Common Sense”

August 22nd, 2016

For some time, I have wanted to do a post on this recent Fed. Cir. decision (Appeal No. 2015-2073 (Fed. Cir. , August 10,  2016),) in which the Fed. Cir. panel of Judges Moore, Linn and O’Malley (writing) reversed a PTAB decision finding most of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843 obvious over a single prior art reference, U.S. Patent .No. 5,859,636 (“Pandit”). Claim 1 is more than a page long, and I will not try to describe it in any detail, except to say that it can be exemplified by the use of a computer program to build an address book.

Read the rest of this entry »

BIO IP & Diagnostics Symposium

August 22nd, 2016

A guest post from Patent Docs.

The Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) will be holding its fourth annual IP & Diagnostics Symposium from 8:15 am to 2:30 pm on September 29, 2016 at the Hilton Alexandria Old Town Hotel in Alexandria, VA.  The Symposium will review and evaluate the state of patent law for advanced molecular diagnostics and personalized medicine as well as explore the implications of developments in these fields for patenting in the broader biopharma sector.

Read the rest of this entry »

Takeaways from Chisum Patent Academy’s 2016 Seminars

August 16th, 2016

A guest post from Chisum Patent Academy.

On August 4-5 and 8-9, 2016 the Chisum Patent Academy held two advanced patent law roundtable seminars at the historic Mayflower Park Hotel in Seattle, Washington. In addition to covering recent “blockbuster” court decisions, our primary focus was “The Brave New World of IPR.” We emphasized repeatedly that the law and procedure of inter partes review is a moving target. The Federal Circuit reaffirmed that on Friday, August 12, when it granted rehearing en banc in one of the IPR claim amendment cases analyzed during our seminar, In re Aqua Products, 823 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. May 25, 2016).

Read the rest of this entry »

USPTO Post-Prosecution Pilot Program Launches

July 12th, 2016

A guest post from Edward Sandor, attorney at Schwegman.

iStock_68004151_SMALLThe Post-Prosecution Pilot Program (P3) launched at the USPTO Monday, combining features of the AFCP 2.0 and Pre-Appeal Brief Conference Pilot programs, with the notable addition of Applicant participation in the process.

Once a P3 request is received, the SPE will coordinate a panel experienced in the relevant field of technology to conduct a conference with the Applicant in person, by phone, or via WebEx video conference, where the final rejection will either be upheld, the application allowed, or prosecution reopened.

Read the rest of this entry »