Posts Tagged ‘Patent Law’

USPTO Myriad-Mayo Guidance Still Not At An Alpha Standard

Tuesday, March 24th, 2015

This is a guest post from Paul Cole.

iStock_000029586246_SmallAs readers will be aware, the USPTO published revised Guidance on Section 101 eligibility in December 2014 together with Nature-Based Examples and Abstract ideas examples. These materials and the case-law on which they were based appear on a dedicated web-page.

A Forum on the revised Guidance was held on 21 January with contributions from Raul Tamyo on behalf of the USPTO and from eight members of our profession. Their slides are accessible on the web-page. It also promises a Forum Replay in three parts, but those wishing to hear in detail what was said will be disappointed because the three links are broken and play nothing. The comments period ended on 16 March, and the absence of a workable Forum Replay (which has been pointed out to the USPTO) would arguably in itself justify an extension of the comments period for our profession and for the public.

(more…)

“Changing The Horizon” Or “Lost Horizon”? – Kappos Pulls It Together

Thursday, March 19th, 2015

road in mountainsAt a meeting sponsored by Intellectual Asset Management (IPBC/Global), “Meeting the NPE Challenge,” former Director of the USPTO, David Kappos on March 13th (a Friday even) gave a speech that cogently summarized the state of the IP landscape both from the law and policy perspectives. If you have felt overwhelmed and even put off by (im)perfect storm of legislative proposals, judicial holdings, and simplistic editorials that is buffeting the patent system, you must take the time to read the text of his speech, which occupies only 14 pages, but covers almost every “incoming” that the patent system has had to duck, or endure, in recent years (Ed.: “Time flies when you are having fun”). (A copy can be found at the end of this post.) I am not going to attempt a summary here –the talk is not that long—except to say that it summarizes both “Legislative Reform” (“The AIA is working”) and more recent proposals, such as fee shifting and covered customer stays. Section 101 is covered –“the courts seems to have lost their way”—including the recent attacks on software patents—(“Software patents are not statistically prone to being ‘bad’ patents”).

(more…)

Takeaways from Chisum Patent Academy 2015 Seminar in Cincinnati

Wednesday, March 11th, 2015

Guest Post from Don Chisum

iStock_000017522821_SmallOn March 5-6, 2015 the Chisum Patent Academy held a two-day seminar at the 21C Museum Hotel in downtown Cincinnati, Ohio to discuss and debate current developments in U.S. patent law. The roundtable seminar group was limited to ten persons; sessions were led by treatise authors and educators Donald Chisum and Janice Mueller.

Attendees included experienced patent litigators and prosecutors from law firms and corporations in Detroit, Chicago, Phoenix, Cincinnati, Cleveland, St. Louis, and the Washington, DC area. Participants enjoyed the 21C’s Museum Hotel’s provocative modern art collection, innovative food and accommodations, and lively seminar discussion.

Here’s our recap of the takeaways from the seminar:

(more…)

Patents4Life is Six Years Old this Month. Happy Birthday to Us!

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2015

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERASix years ago, In re Kubin caused a flurry of concern among biotech practitioners, and a short article on this decision was the first post on Patents4Life. That was a pretty big “story” at the time but we all had no idea what was coming our way. It is difficult to think of an area of patent law that hasn’t been through a sea change since 2009, or at least has not encountered some very high seas.

There are not enough hours in today to do even a cursory review of the “State of Patent Law” since Patents4Life was started. Of course, one of the hottest topics right now is the scope of s. 101, and its breadth will surely be adjusted as the precedent piles up. And just consider, all of this debate is completely outside of the changes wrought in 35 USC by the AIA, the rise of generic biologicals that was set off by the ACA (“Obamacase”) and the Therasense, Teva v. Sandoz and Nautilus decisions.

(more…)