by Steve Reiss of www.reisspatents.com
...an examiner in his/her pajamas, teleworking from a basement, can..
"The defense of want of invention in the Diddell machine is not
urged here because it is said that the decision of that question depends
upon mechanical comparisons too numerous and complicated to be
conveniently made by a bench of judges."-Continental Paper Bag
Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 136 O. G., 1297 (Supreme Court, 1908).
Saturday, February 21, 2015
Friday, February 20, 2015
Unavoidable No More...
by Steve Reiss of www.reisspatents.com
The PLTIA eliminates the provisions of the patent statutes relating to revival of abandoned applications or acceptance of delayed maintenance fee payments on the basis of a showing of "unavoidable" delay. 68 FR 62368, 62369
§ 1.137 Revival of abandoned application...
(a) Revival on the basis of unintentional delay. If the delay in reply by applicant or patent owner was unintentional, a petition may be filed pursuant to this section to revive an abandoned application...
The PLTIA eliminates the provisions of the patent statutes relating to revival of abandoned applications or acceptance of delayed maintenance fee payments on the basis of a showing of "unavoidable" delay. 68 FR 62368, 62369
§ 1.137 Revival of abandoned application...
(a) Revival on the basis of unintentional delay. If the delay in reply by applicant or patent owner was unintentional, a petition may be filed pursuant to this section to revive an abandoned application...
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Aliens Can Apply Too!!
by Steve Reiss of www.reisspatents.com
Be it enacted, That any citizen of the United States, or alien who shall have been resident in the United States one year next preceding, and shall have made oath of his intention to become a citizen thereof, who shall have invented any new art, machine, or improvement thereof, and shall desire further time to mature the same, may, on paying to the credit of the Treasury, in manner as provided in the ninth section of this act, the sum of twenty dollars, file in the Patent Office a caveat.
Patent Act of 1836.
Be it enacted, That any citizen of the United States, or alien who shall have been resident in the United States one year next preceding, and shall have made oath of his intention to become a citizen thereof, who shall have invented any new art, machine, or improvement thereof, and shall desire further time to mature the same, may, on paying to the credit of the Treasury, in manner as provided in the ninth section of this act, the sum of twenty dollars, file in the Patent Office a caveat.
Patent Act of 1836.
Friday, February 6, 2015
Inequitable Conduct...
by Steve Reiss of www.reisspatents.com
In the early 2000s, decisions issued from the Federal Circuit where the bar for inequitable conduct seemed to be set so low that many a patentee tripped over it based on what seemed to be nothing more than mistakes or oversight divorced from any intent to deceive. In other words, it seemed that an absolute liability standard for inequitable conduct was improperly being imposed. Even proof of good faith seemed insufficient to clear the bar if one uninformed in patent realities concluded with the benefit of hindsight that a patent agent or inventor "should have known" something.
In the early 2000s, decisions issued from the Federal Circuit where the bar for inequitable conduct seemed to be set so low that many a patentee tripped over it based on what seemed to be nothing more than mistakes or oversight divorced from any intent to deceive. In other words, it seemed that an absolute liability standard for inequitable conduct was improperly being imposed. Even proof of good faith seemed insufficient to clear the bar if one uninformed in patent realities concluded with the benefit of hindsight that a patent agent or inventor "should have known" something.
The Inequitable Conduct "Plague" in U.S. Patent Litigation: Is it Over and Is the CAFC Moving Away from an Absolute Liability Standard?
IP Law & Technology Program April 2006
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
Words...
by Steve Reiss of www.reisspatents.com.
"Things are not made for the sake of words, but words for things." Autogiro Co. of America v. United States, 384 F.2d 391, 397 (Ct. Cl. 1967).
"Things are not made for the sake of words, but words for things." Autogiro Co. of America v. United States, 384 F.2d 391, 397 (Ct. Cl. 1967).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)