![[IPWatchdog Logo]](https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/themes/ipwatchdog/assets/images/temp/logo@2x.png){kind=logo}
Michael Sartori
Parner, Baker Botts
Dr. Michael Sartori is a partner in Baker Botts‘s Intellectual Property Department. As a registered patent attorney, he focuses his practice on patent prosecution, patent portfolio counseling, and patent litigation. Prior to joining Baker Botts, Dr. Sartori served for over a decade as Chair of the Patent Prosecution and Counseling Group at another AMLaw 100 firm.
For patent prosecution and counseling, Dr. Sartori is a recognized thought leader in using Examiner analytics and provides a comprehensive, business-goal-orientated, data-driven approach to developing and managing his client’s patent portfolios. Keeping his client’s business objectives in mind, Dr. Sartori crafts and implements cost-effective strategies to assist his client’s goals for their patent portfolio, whether U.S. only or worldwide.
For patent litigation and counseling, Dr. Sartori provides guidance prior to and during patent litigation, whether in an inter partes review (IPR), at a U.S. district court, or at the Federal Circuit. He often serves as part of a cohesive and tactical litigation team that is driven to assist with the client’s litigation goals. He has also provided opinions leading up to litigation, including infringement, validity and enforceability opinions, as well as freedom-to-operate opinions.
Recent Articles by Michael Sartori
Is the scope of a design patent determined by the figures alone? Two recent Federal Circuit decisions highlight that the words describing the article of manufacture in the title and claims can indeed limit the scope and enforceability of a design patent. In particular, the title and claims of the design patent contain important information that provide a more accurate and predictable notice of what is and is not protected by the design patent. Thus, the title and the claims of a design patent are particularly relevant to the scope of the patent—both for procurement and enforcement.
Can a U.S. patent be invalidated due to an inaccurate translation of the non-English priority patent application? The answer is most definitely “Yes.” This article examines the recent Federal Circuit decision in which this occurred, IBSA Institut Biochimique, S.A. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 966 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2020), and discusses the procedural framework on how to prevent and correct such a problem.
Examiners at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) can be categorized into three different “types,” namely, green, yellow and red Examiners. Knowing the type of Examiner assigned to a particular U.S. patent application can help in strategizing on prosecution tactics, crafting responses, and anticipating costs and timing needed to obtain a U.S. patent. For each year from 2009 to 2019, data was gathered for Examiners in each of eight non-design Tech Centers at the USPTO from the LexisNexis PatentAdvisor® patent prosecution analytics database. Examiners are categorized into three different types (so-called green, yellow, and red Examiners), and the data show that certain types of Examiners allow and examine disproportionately more U.S. patents each year than other types of Examiners, resulting in few allowing many, and many allowing few.