Menu
Browse Options
Maximizing Patent Term Adjustment For U.S. Patents

Under U.S. patent laws, the 20-year term of a patent can be extended if the USPTO fails to meet certain timeliness benchmarks during the patent examination process. The statute provides for Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) equal to the number of days of USPTO delay, less the number of days of applicant delay. The statute defines taking more than three months to respond as one type of applicant delay, and delegates authority to the USPTO to define other circumstances that amount to applicant delay, which the USPTO has done in 37 CFR § 1.704. While many of the USPTO’s circumstances are not surprising, one category in particular can result in PTA deductions for actions made to advance prosecution. [...]

USA: Vicor Corp. v. SynQor, Inc., United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2014-1578, 13 March 2015

Nine claims of a SynQor patent for a high efficiency power converter were anticipated by the combination of two prior art references that taught DC-to-DC power converters for pulsed loads, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled (Vicor Corp. v. SynQor, Inc., March 13, 2015, Clevenger, R.). Because the combined references taught a single embodiment that anticipated all of the elements of the broadest representative claim of the SynQor patent, the court reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s finding that the asserted claims were not anticipated.

A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.

[...]
USA: In re Singhal, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2014-1704, 10 March 2015

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err in affirming a patent examiner’s obviousness rejection of an application that disclosed a system for using two-way communication satellites to regulate the activation of a vehicle’s ignition, based on a driver’s mental state as determined by response times, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled (In re Singhal, March 10, 2015, per curiam). The decision of the Board was therefore affirmed.

A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.

[...]
US: Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Management, LLC, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Nos. 2012-1649, 12 February 2015

Please click here to find US patent cases from the the U.S. Supreme Court, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals with a detailed summary of each case.

Recently added from our US IP Law Daily service:

Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Management, LLC, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Nos. 2012-1649, 12 February 2015

Collateral estoppel invalidated a jury’s finding that Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Management and Avon Products infringed five claims of two “sales system” patents owned by Soverain Software, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled (Soverain Software LLC v. V [...]

Cloned Sheep And Other Patent Eligibility Issues In The U.S.

Last week, in In Re Roslin Institute, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that cloned cattle, sheep, pigs and goats are non-patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101. While the result that these cloned animals cannot be patented may not be surprising, the basis for the court’s finding–that the claimed subject matter was ineligible under the “product of nature” doctrine, has some scratching their heads. A more logical way to understand the decision is to read the court’s holding as finding that the cloned animals are non-patent eligible subject matter because they cannot be distinguished from naturally occurring animals.

The patent application at iss [...]

Implications Of The Proposed USPTO Attributable Owner Rules

Pursuant to a U.S. White House initiative aimed at addressing the “challenges from Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs)” and stemming the economic drain of meritless patent litigation, the USPTO has issued propose rules to require patent applicants and patent owners to disclose patent ownership information during and after patent prosecution and during any Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings. Written comments on the proposed rules are due by April 24, 2014 (extended from the original March 25 deadline). While many patent offices require disclosure of the entity entitled to pursue a patent, the proposed USPTO Attributable Owner rules could go much farther, and could be difficult and costl [...]

Contributors, Authors, Books, & More...