In sum, patent prosecutors who operate principally as IP counselors best position themselves to make a greater impact on their clients and build a more profitable, sustainable practice… To an IP counselor, success means getting cases with strategical…Continue Reading ...
Lawyers are constantly bombarded by challenges that naturally create fear and anxiety. Many lawyers don’t recognize these fears and fail effectively to deal with them. This causes many lawyers to be unhappy and to provide less than outstanding service to their clients. I identify many of these looming fears and present some practical tips for dealing with them… The consequences of these fears include drinking too much alcohol to relax, being snippy or yelling at people at work, eating too…
Continue Reading ...
Ji-Yong (David) Chung and John Voisinet are patent professionals at Snyder, Clark, Lesch & Chung. David.Chung@snyderllp.com.Continue Reading ...
Strafford will be offering a webinar/teleconference entitled “Section 112(a) Enablement and Written Description: Leveraging CCPA and Early Federal Circuit Decisions — Capitalizing on Precedent to Withstand 112(a) Rejections and Attacks on Patent Validity and Patentability” on August 24, 2017 from 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EDT). Thomas L. Irving of Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner; Donna M. Meuth, Associate General Counsel, Eisai; Amanda K. Murphy of Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner will provide guidance to patent counsel on leveraging decisions by the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) and the Federal Circuit regarding application of § 112 written…Continue Reading ...
Strafford will be offering a webinar/teleconference entitled “Navigating the Patent Prosecution Highway and Other Accelerated Filing Options — Evaluating the Different Options, Weighing the Benefits and Risks, Obtaining Patent Protection” on August 31…Continue Reading ...
McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP will be offering a live webinar entitled “The Evolving 5 W’s of Global IP Enforcement: The Strategic Implications of Recent Global IP Law Developments” on August 29, 2017 from 10:00 am to 11:15 am (CT). In this presentation, MBHB attorney S. Richard Carden will review some recent developments in cases, laws and harmonization efforts and discuss how companies should take these changes into account when developing their own IP strategies. The webinar will discuss the following topics: • The implications of recent and upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as TC Heartland and Oil…Continue Reading ...
Further to an earlier post on IPBiz about the Berkeley brief in the CRISPR matter, a quick inspection of the brief does not show the UC/Berkeley lawyers met their burden to establish priority of the Kim application [ US application 14/685,568 (published appl. 20150322457) ] to the earliest provisional filing date under the law of Dynamic Drinkware v. National Graphics,800 F.3d 1375; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15764; 116 U.S.P.Q.2D 1045.
Excerpts from the brief follow. [If anyone has additional information, please comment.]Continue Reading ...
From the brief–>
Second, the PTAB reasoned that the Kim Application was not public when Broad filed its provisional application in December 2012. But Section 102(e) prior art is prior art as of its effective filing date, not the date on which it eventually becomes public. In re Bartfield, 925 F.2d 1450, 1451 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. Brenner, 382 U.S. 252, 254-55 (1965).
Under the correct legal standard, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to take UC’s claims to using the CRISPR-Cas9 complex in any environment and follow the steps set forth in the Kim Application in order to use CRISPR-Cas9 to successfully cleave DNA in eukaryotes.13
13 Even if the Kim Application is not considered as Section 102(e) prior art, it is compelling evidence of simultaneous invention that the PTAB refused to consider. Considered under the correct legal standard, the evidence of simultaneous invention (including the Kim Provisional) and the level of guidance and knowledge in the art demonstrate beyond doubt that Broad’s claims are obvious. See Part III, infra.
III. When considered under the correct legal standard and all the evidence, Broad’s eukaryotic claims are obvious in light of UC’s generic claims.
The PTAB’s multiple legal errors led directly to its counterintuitive conclusion that Broad’s claims were not obvious in light of UC’s claims. Broad identified no innovation—or even extensive experimentation—that would be needed to employ UC’s CRISPR-Cas9 system in eukaryotic cells. Nor could it have done so, given that five other research groups succeeded in introducing CRISPR-Cas9 into eukaryotic cells within a matter of months using only conventional techniques. Broad staked its entire argument for non-obviousness (on which Broad bore the burden of proof) on the proposition that a skilled artisan seeking to employ CRISPR-Cas9 to cleave DNA in eukaryotes would have lacked a reasonable expectation that its effort would succeed. The PTAB accepted that argument because it erroneously required “specific instructions” in the prior art and conflated the need for experimentation with a lack of an expectation of success. O’Farrell, 853 F.2d at 903.
Considered under the correct standard and in light of the simultaneous-development evidence that the PTAB erroneously disregarded, the undisputed evidence permits only one conclusion: Broad’s claims are obvious. And at the very least, the PTAB’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence
On July 26, 2017, the WWE [World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc ] filed a trademark application for the word mark 3:16 as applied to goods: IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: Clothing, namely, tops, shirts, jackets, sweatshirts, hoodies; outerwear, namely, coats; bottoms, pants, shorts, underwear, dresses, pajamas, lingerie, clothing ties, scarves, gloves, swimwear; Halloween and masquerade costumes; footwear, namely, shoes, sneakers, slippers, flip flops, boots; headwear, namely, hats, caps; wrist bands; bandanas. The serial number is 87543714.
As of July 31, 2017, the application was in NEW APPLICATION PROCESSING. The trademark application has been accepted by the Office (has met the minimum filing requirements) and has not yet been assigned to an examiner. The application will be assigned to an examining attorney approximately 3 months after filing date [which was July 26].Continue Reading ...
DARK / DARKEN / DARKNESS
$$ The resultant carbon conjugate was washed (by centrifugation, pelleting and resuspension) 3 times with 0.05 mol/L borate buffe…Continue Reading ...
We’re now approaching the end of FY2017 (Sept 30, 2017), and the USPTO is very likely to end up spending well more than it collects in fees. The chart below is just through June 30 (Q3), but look fairly harsh with a several hundred million dollar gap between income and spending. PTO Finance Chief Tony […]Continue Reading ...
San Marcos, CA-based consumer hardware developer Snap Light LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Kimsaprincess Inc., a company owned by American reality television personality Kim Kardashian West. The patent suit targets West and her compa…Continue Reading ...
- News from Abroad — Mexican Antitrust Authority Study on Generic Drug Entry — On Patents and Marketing Authorizations — Part II
- CAFC in ALVARADO HOSPITAL. A dissent by Judge Newman.
- Two CAFC judges in Nidec case: we question whether the practice of expanding panels
- Nidec v. Zhongshan — Did the Federal Circuit possess jurisdiction?