Posts Tagged: "pli"

I think that the Supreme Court decision will be enough to prevent the so-called “patent reform” from gaining any traction in the Senate. The cynical view is that there is so much lobbying money flowing why would Congress want to turn that spigot off when it could easily flow into the next Congressional term? Further, there has been a growing and steady effort by those opposed to the pending patent legislation. Opponents were already making their case heard as the Senate continued to time after time postpone dissemination of the Manager’s Amendment, signaling the consensus that some Senators desperately wanted to reach was illusive, if not impossible. Now with the Supreme Court decisions in these two cases those on the Hill who were already skeptical have more than enough ammunition to slam on the brakes, at least for now, to see what the ultimate ramifications of the decisions will be on the reality of patent litigation.

The “new normal” created by the PTAB has drastically altered the patent assertion landscape. Simply stated, when a patent owner is notified that a patent they own is being brought into a post grant proceeding the statistics, if not the gravity of the threat, suggest that it must be taken seriously immediately and competent representation must be obtained quickly. The burdens are different at the PTAB than they would be in the Federal District Court. Specifically, the PTAB will employ the standard USPTO technique of giving patent claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, which will make it easier for a claim to be determined to overlap with the prior art. Furthermore, in litigation patent claims are presumed valid and the defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that a claim is invalid for one or more reasons.

Jaeger did not file a response to the complaint, despite being granted two extensions of time to do so. He did, however, send two brief fax messages to OED, in one pointing out that he was an honorably discharged veteran who served during the Vietnam era, and in another pointing out that the underlying complaint that initiated disciplinary involvement stemmed from a disagreement with a client who did not want to pay his bill. Unfortunately for Jaeger, however, he never filed an answer, which meant that the allegations within the complaint were all deemed to be admitted. See 37 CFR 11.36(d).

It is not common to see a petition for reinstatement, much less an actual reinstatement. That is, however, what happened with respect to Mr. B., who was suspended nunc pro tunc from October 26, 2009, for a period of 60 months, but with the last 24 months stayed. B’s petition for reinstatement was successful, and he is once again a patent agent registered to practice at the USPTO. In the original disciplinary proceeding that lead to the suspension, the OED Director filed a disciplinary complaint against B on October 26, 2009, and then Director Kappos entered an interim suspension order because B was convicted of a felony. Authority for such an interim suspension comes from 37 CFC 11.25.

Fashion law has become as diverse, complex and global as the fashion industry itself. Fashion law can be analogized to entertainment, art or sports law, in that it is circumscribed by the nature of a particular industry, but is comprised of many distinct substantive practice areas of law. One way to describe fashion law is to say that it is the body of law and legal principles that governs the relationships among the various participants in the fashion industry, the relationships between such participants and the consumer, and the relationship between such participants and various governmental entities.

Those days are long gone, for nearly a decade now, but when you do take the examination you will be provided with an electronic copy of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedures. Don’t fool yourself though — the fact that this is an “open book” exam does not mean that it is easy or that you will be able to “wing it” and rely on the MPEP as a crutch. Many people have difficulty finishing the exam and it is a recipe for failure to simply plan to rely on the MPEP to get you through the exam. This is particularly true today where much of the examination is based on new material not found in the MPEP and only available in Federal Register Notices.

Perhaps the most ridiculous suggestion given (step 8) is to download the free PTO Patent Bar Exam Review Package from CNET. The WikiHow article explains that this free package contains MPEP 8th edition revisions 1 and 2. Why would you ever want to even consider the 8th edition revisions 1 and 2 when you will be tested on the 8th edition revision 9? Revision 9 was published August 2012. Revision 1 was published February 2003 and revision 2 was published May 2004. Why would anyone who is at all serious use materials that are a decade old to take an exam that is constantly being updated and refreshed with new materials? If you study the wrong MPEP edition you have absolutely NO chance to pass the patent bar exam.

Kappos explained that the PTAB has started and will continue, in at least some cases, to issue shorter per curiam decisions, which will allow them to decide more cases and move through the backlog. Co-Chair of the program, Rob Sterne, asked Kappos whether this would present problems for those who might want to appeal to the Federal Circuit. Given the standards applied by the Federal Circuit will it be possible for an applicant ever be able to satisfy the standards? Kappos acknowledged that is a concern and why we will see hundreds of shorter per curiam decisions rather than thousands. Kappos explained that the USPTO wants these types of decisions issued only when the record is extremely clear, making a detailed decision of the Board less necessary.

A new addition to the program just announced today is David Kappos, who is the immediate former Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Kappos, a life-long employee of IBM prior to taking charge of the USPTO, is now with Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP in New York City. Kappos will discuss the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, specifically discussing ex parte reexamination, the remaining legacy inter partes reexamination cases, inter partes review and the transitional program relating to covered business method patents. His segment will run from 9:15 am to 10:15 am. In addition to being presented live in New York City the program will also be webcast.

Hanlon started with statistics relating to the variety of new procedures that were ushered in as part of either phase one or phase two implementation of the America Invents Act (AIA). He started with prioritized examination, which went into effect on September 26, 2011. Between inception and February 19, 2013, there have been 8,554 requests for prioritized examination, with 94% of requests granted. In those cases where the petition was granted there were only 55 days from petition grant to the First Office Action, and the average days to final disposition has been just 168 days. So far there have been 3,667 final dispositions mailed with 1,828 allowances mailed, which corresponds to an allowance rate of 49.9%, which isn’t bad, but didn’t initially strike me as great either.

The Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), has announced that the patent bar examination, which is sometimes called the patent registration exam or patent agent’s exam, will be updated again effective early April 2013. No date certain has yet been announced by the OED, but based on the previous updating of the exam when new rules became effective on September 16, 2012, it can be expected that the patent bar exam will be updated sometime during the first week of April.

Generally, the Patent Exam remains as predictable as ever in terms of what the USPTO wants you to know. The USPTO concentrates on those issues that lead to loss of rights and prejudice to your client’s situation. They want to be sure you know how to get a filing date, assert priority, respond to Office Actions, start and advance an appeal, etc. As to the post-grant procedures added by AIA Phase 2, the focus is on how they are started, timing, and thresholds of proof.

Yes, this may be appropriately characterized as coming from the shameless commerce division, but at least some will probably want to know that the PLI Patent Litigation treatise has been recently refreshed to include some important updates. Even if you do not own the treatise, or who don’t plan on buying it, would probably still be interested in this readers digest length version of the updates to various important patent law matters published below. This snapshot-update is provided courtesy of PLI. Furthermore, PLI offers this free sample chapter, which relates to Damages and Attorneys Fees. Who doesn’t like free stuff?