Top Ten List of Patent News Stories in 2018

top 10 stampAlthough this list will reach most the readers of Patents4Life after 2019 begins, 2018 deserves some attention even if it has the feel of “those we lost in 2018” lists. Although most of my colleague-commentators have published their lists by now, I have not read any of them but rather, scanned my archives to look for patent news of note. If you want to re-read the original posts, you can look at the archives for the month my original post occurred. The comments below are notably citation-free, since I didn’t want to write a law review article to get my impressions down.

(1-3) Although this blog focuses on life sciences news, the three IP related Supreme Court decisions must be noted. In April, the Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group (appeal 16-712) the Court held that IPR is an appropriate exercise of power by Congress to assign adjudication of public rights, e.g., patent rights, to the PTO.

In SAS v. Iancu, also decided in April, the Court held that s. 318(a) requires that the PTAB must review all challenged patent claims. No more “partial institutions” of IPR (appeal 16-989).

In WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp. (16-1011), the Court held that infringement under s. 271(f)(2) permits the recovery of foreign profits as damages for infringing acts carried out in the U.S. (June 22d). Continue reading

Posted in 2018 Patent News, Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Legal Wiggle Room in the Joint AIPLA-IPO Proposal on Patentability?

I recently took another look at the Joint AIPLA-IPO Proposal on Patent Eligibility that was prompted by the scheduling of a discussion meeting by the Minnesota Intellectual Property Law Association. I confess that I did not participate in either the AIPLA’s proposal process and cannot attend the upcoming MIPLA meeting but, nonetheless I have some thoughts.

The Joint Proposal to amend section 101 reads as follows:

“Eligible Subject Matter

(a)  Whoever invents or discovers, and claims as an invention, any useful process, machine, composition of matter, or any useful improvement thereof, shall be entitled to a patent therefor, subject only to the conditions and requirements set forth in this title.

Sole Exceptions to Subject Matter Eligibility

(b)  A claimed invention is ineligible under subsection (a) if and only if the claimed invention as a whole (i) exists in nature independently of and prior to any human activity or (ii) is performed solely in the human mind.

Sole Eligibility Standard

 (c) The eligibility of a claimed invention under subsections (a) and (b) shall be determined without regard to:

1. The requirements or conditions of sections 102, 103, and 112 of this title;

2. the manner in which the claimed invention was made or discovered; or

3. whether the claimed invention includes an inventive concept.”

Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Novartis v. Breckenridge: Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Explained

Without trying to summarize this well-written opinion by Judge Chen, I simply recommend that you store it somewhere and pull it out when you have a tricky obviousness-type double-patenting situation and want a thorough review of the doctrine. The opinion reviews both the facts of the present dispute, which involved pre- and post-URAA filing dates, and of the precedent, a Gilead case and an AbbVie case – with clear charts as well.

Posted in Double Patenting, Obviousness | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

IP Update – Canada | New Patent Rules released: 12 Notable Changes & Tips

Canada flagGuest Post from David Schwartz and Jeff Leuschner of  Smart & Biggar.

On December 1, 2018, the Canadian government released its proposed new Patent Rules in the Canada Gazette, Part I. This is one of the last steps necessary for implementing significant changes to Canada’s patent law, which are expected to come into force in 2019.

There will be many changes to Canadian patent law and practice. In this article we discuss the most notable changes expected, and some tips for safe and effective practice under the new rules.

Six changes to look forward to

The intent of many of the changes is to implement the Patent Law Treaty and to help minimize the risk of loss of rights. Changes we look forward to include:

1. Restoration of priority will be available

Currently, in order to make a valid priority claim in Canada, the Canadian patent application must be filed no more than 12 months after the filing date of the priority application.

The new system will allow for the 12-month priority period to be extended to 14 months if the failure to meet the 12-month deadline was unintentional. This change will bring Canadian practice into line with the right of restoration of priority provided for in Rule 49ter of the Regulations under the PCT.

However, the Federal Court of Canada can reverse the restoration of priority and declare the priority claim invalid if it is later determined that the failure to meet the 12-month deadline was intentional.

Tip: The “unintentional” standard for restoration of priority in Canada will likely be easier to meet than a “due care” standard applied by some other patent offices. Consider Canada as a favourable choice for situations in which restoration of priority must be relied upon.

Continue reading

Posted in Int'l Practice and Policy | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment