All Posts

Oral Arguments Completed in PTO v. GSK, Tafas

I am sitting in a Starbucks just outside the District of Columbia, across the river in Virginia.  I attended the oral arguments this morning at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the matter of the United States Patent & Trademark Office v. Tafas, the appeal of the claims and continuations rules promulgated by the USPTO…

Federal Circuit Blasts Qualcomm Patents

On Monday, December 2, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision affirming in part the district court’s ruling in the patent dispute between Broadcomm and Qualcomm.  See Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp.  The patent infringement case involved the consequence of silence in the face of a duty to disclose patents in a standards-setting organization.…

Federal Circuit to Hear Patent Office Appeal

Tomorrow, December 5, 2008 at 10:00am the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hold oral arguments regarding the appeal by the United States Patent & Trademark Office of the ruling issued by Judge Cacheris of the Eastern District of Virginia, which permanently enjoined the claims and continuations rules from going into effect.  You will probably recall…

USPTO v. GSK & Tafas Chronology

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hold oral arguments in the case between the United States Patent & Trademark Office and Dr. Tafas and GlaxoSmithKline on Friday, December 5, 2008 at 10am.  I have followed this case since the very beginning and will be in attendance in the gallery to hear the arguments.  I plan…

Starting the Patent Process on a Limited Budget

QUESTION: I have a few ideas that I think could really be a success. I started researching “how to patent an idea” but have been bombarded with information.  I have no clue where to start, and I have only a limited budget. What should be my first step? ANSWER: Your question is one I get a lot.  The patent process can be complex…

Obscure Patent: Carry-out food container

Carry-out food container US Patent No. 7,451,889 Issued November 18, 2008 Did you know that on Tuesday, November 18, 2008, a carry out food container was patented? I discussed this patent in a post last week titled Unequal Treatment at the US Patent Office, where I discussed the unfair and inequal treatment that seems to be plaguing the Patent Office.  After…

Holiday Patent: Process for Deboning a Turkey

Process for Deboning a Turkey US Patent No. 6,572,467 Issued June 3, 2003 Being in a festive mood on turkey day I thought I would profile this patent, which covers a process for deboning a turkey.  Happy Thanksgiving!

CA Internet Security & Identity Theft Protection

On Monday, November 24, 2008, CA announced the immediate availability of its CA Internet Security Suite Plus 2009. Each element of the suite, which includes a personal firewall, anti-virus, anti-spyware, anti-spam and anti-phishing software has been enhanced to provide even stronger protection against a wide-range of emerging online threats. This latest edition of CA Internet Security also includes at no…

FTC Petitions Supreme Court Over Rambus

On Monday, November 24, 2008, the Federal Trade Commission filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court (see also Appendix Vol 1 and Appendix Vol 2) seeking review of the April 22, 2008 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Rambus Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, which turned out to…

Unequal Treatment at the US Patent Office

Something is seriously wrong at the United States Patent & Trademark Office, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to believe anything other than that there is ongoing unequal treatment of inventors who file patent applications. In the United States everyone is supposed to enjoy the same rights and privileges, and this concept manifests itself in the ideal that everyone is…

Defensive Portfolio No Help Against Patent Trolls

The Wall Street Journal is reporting today that RPX Corp will take on patent trolls. The trouble is that what RPX wants to do is raise money to acquire patents for defensive purposes. This is hardly something new, and it not something that those in the industry will tell you is calculated to succeed. You see, there just isn’t enough money to buy up all the relevant patents that patent trolls could get their hands on to use to sue.

How to Fix the USPTO

The United States Patent & Trademark Office has just released the 2008 Performance and Accountability Report, which is the annual report explaining the activities of the Office during fiscal year 2008.  While so much of the report is a self congratulating look back at what the Dudas Administration believes it effectively achieved over the past year, the report should be anything…

Don’t Get A Patent? Plainly Ridiculous!

Increasingly on the Internet invention advertising is taking an odd and seemingly inexplicable turn toward advising independent inventors to not seek patent protection, which is undeniably bad advice that will undoubtedly cause much disappointment and heart break for those who actually follow it.  But why is it that you are starting to see more and more advertisements that say it is…

FDA Approves Patented Gel for Treating Acne

Arcutis Pharmaceuticals, a privately held specialty pharmaceutical organization focusing in medical dermatology, announced yesterday that the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the new drug application (NDA) of Acanya Gel (clindamycin phosphate 1.2% and benzoyl peroxide 2.5%) for the once-daily treatment of acne vulgaris in patients 12 years and older. Evaluated in clinical studies enrolling over 3,200 subjects…

Reexamination Would Stop Patent Trolls

This means that for inter partes reexamination 74% of requests result in all claims being canceled and 14% of the time certificates issue with at least some claims being changed. This is staggering because if you can eliminate all claims then the patent is worthless, but even if you can only change claims you have effectively prevented retrospective infringement of changed claims because the claim that is changed can only be enforced moving forward from the point of change. Thus, quality reexamination representation is far better than paying a bounty for the collection of prior art references.