In October, I spoke at AIPLA with James Carmichael, who used to head up the “Fraud Squad” at the PTO. He noted that there had only been three Fed. Cir. decisions upholding findings of inequitable conduct (IC) since Therasense, two of which involved attorney misconduct. Now there is a fourth. The Fed. Cir. panel of Judges Dyk, Bryson and Reyna vacated and remanded a district court’s finding of no IC, but they wrote at a level of factual detail which virtually instructed the district court to change its mind. (Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC, Appeal no. 2012-1642, 2013-1024 (Fed. Cir. November 15, 2013) a copy is available at the end of this post).
Posts Tagged ‘IP law tools’
I recently received a well-written post from Smart & Biggar/Feherstonhaugh in Toronto reminding me that a publication by the inventor only shields a later third-party publication from being a bar if the second publication was derived from the inventor and a Canadian application – not a U.S. application—is filed by the inventor within a year of the inventor’s publication. This is not the same as the AIA provisions that allow a publication by the first inventor to avoid the prior art effect of a second publication of the invention, made by a third-party, so long as the first inventor files anywhere within a year of his/her publication.
You can find the entire post here.
Federal Magistrate Jeffrey Keyes ruled that it is fair use for law firms to use copyrighted journal articles when preparing patent applications, and recommended that an infringement suit against Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner PA (SLW) by two academic publishers be dismissed.
Brad Forrest, SLW shareholder and chairman said:
“We are pleased with the result. The decision supports the long standing practice of providing patent offices with non-patent literature to help improve patent quality. It benefits every inventor and company involved in innovation, without harming established markets for copyrighted works.”
More information about the ruling can be found on Law360′s site.
The report analyzes the stem cell patent landscape from November 2008 to Oct 2009 and from November 2008 to October 2011. The “patent watch dataset” is based on patent applications published or patents issued/ granted by the PCT and in the US, EP and UK. The top applicant of published applications is Kyoto University and the top applicant on granted patents is WARF.
However, the report goes far beyond a simple numbers game; it analyzes the therapeutic areas of research represented by the stem cell IP. The report provides topography maps of the various areas such as pluripotent cells (e.g., embryonic stem cells) that is still a very active area, as is research in the areas of hematopoietic stem cells and neural stem cells. Even more interesting is the analysis that maps collaborations between high-filing universities and their spin-offs or start-up companies, as well as established companies.
Having done some of the early IP work on pluripotent adult stem cells, I found the report as addictive as a box of chocolates – I never was sure what would be on the next page.