Options for Dealing with Patent Office Final Rejections
Posted on Aug 24, 2016 in Articles
It happened again. Your company is trying to obtain valuable patent rights, and for the second time (or perhaps the third time, or the fourth time) the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has rejected your patent application. Is there an end in sight?
Read MoreThinking About a Marketing Campaign Based Upon an Olympics Theme? Think Again (Unless You Have Permission)!
Posted on Aug 22, 2016 in Blog
The 2016 Rio Olympics® are upon us and the eyes of the world are firmly focused on Brazil, host of this summer’s blockbuster event for a brief two week period from August 5th to the 21st. During this short period of time, companies of all sizes look to grab the attention of fans all over the world by associating themselves with the games.
Read MoreIntellectual Property Rights in the U.K. After Brexit
Posted on Jul 27, 2016 in Articles
While the dust continues to settle from Brexit, questions abound regarding how the United Kingdom’s historic vote to leave the European Union will affect the future. One important subject is intellectual property. How does Brexit affect intellectual ¬property rights in the U.K.?
Read MoreNew Option for Responding to Final Rejections in the USPTO
Posted on Jul 14, 2016 in Blog
The USPTO has just announced the launch of the Post-Prosecution Pilot (P3) program. The P3 program combines the best features of two other after final programs offered by the USPTO: (1) the After Final Consideration Pilot (AFCP) 2.0 program and (2) the Pre-Appeal Brief Conference Pilot (PABCP) program.
Read MoreFederal Circuit: Another Internet-Based Patent Passes Muster under Alice
Posted on Jul 6, 2016 in Blog
The Federal Circuit, in BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 11687 (June 27, 2016), reversed a grant of a motion to dismiss in which a district court held that the patentee of U.S. Patent No. 5,987,606 (‘606 patent) failed to state a claim of infringement because the claims of that patent were invalid as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. §101. The Federal Circuit concluded that the “ordered combination of [claim] limitations [were] sufficient to satisfy the second step of the Supreme Court’s Alice [patent-eligibility] test.”
Read MoreWill Brexit Cause Your IP to Exit Europe?
Posted on Jun 29, 2016 in Blog
On June 23, 2016, the UK voted to withdraw from the European Union (EU). How this vote will ultimately play out on the European and worldwide economies is the subject of mass speculation. It is certain, however, the withdrawal will ultimately affect important UK intellectual property rights.
Read MoreUSPTO Options for Applicants to Obtain a Patent More Quickly
Posted on Jun 29, 2016 in Articles
There are many reasons why an applicant might want their patent to be granted faster. Fortunately, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) offers a variety of options for patent applicants to obtain patents more quickly.
Read MoreU.S. Supreme Court: New Lesser Standard for Enhanced Patent Damages
Posted on Jun 14, 2016 in Blog
In a unanimous decision issued on June 13, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s nine-year-old strict test for awarding enhanced damages for patent infringement, thereby making it easier for patent holders to win increased damages in court for egregious acts of infringement.
Read MoreCR Attorneys Presenting at New Jersey Law Journal CLE Seminar
Posted on Jun 9, 2016 in Events
CR Attorney Joe Murphy will be presenting a seminar on “Patent Subject Matter Eligibility: Updated Guidance for Protecting Your Inventions” at the New Jersey Law Journal’s In-House CLE program on Tuesday, June 14th.
Read MoreNew Legal Interpretation Puts Many Patents at Risk
Posted on May 27, 2016 in Articles
Timing is everything—so the saying goes. In the world of patent procurement, bad timing can have horrendous consequences. A district court recently held that a patent application was filed one day later than the statute allowed, and the resulting patent was thus invalid. The decision contravenes 150 years of accepted patent practice. If the decision is allowed to stand, more than 12,000 patents may become worthless.
Read More