• Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – September 2017

    Author: Caitlin O’Connell Editor:  Lily Robinson Tuesday, September 5, 2017 Knowles Electronics LLC v. Cirrus Logic, Inc., No. 16-2010, Courtroom 203 In this appeal, the Federal Circuit will decide whether a party has standing to participate in an inter partes reexamination proceeding if the original requester is acquired while the reexamination was pending.  Knowles argues that the […]

    Continue Reading ...
  • USPTO, PTAB refuse to follow Supreme Court Nautilus decision

    The PTAB is openly refusing to follow the Supreme Court’s decision in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., it has found a term previously determined definite by the Federal Circuit to be indefinite, and the Solicitor’s Office is siding with an infringer with a reputation as a knock-off artist over an independent inventor… But why doesn’t the USPTO follow Nautilus? Because the Patent Office feels that since they apply the broadest reasonable interpretation to claims that means that the…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Inquiry into Unexpectedness is Essential Even for Determining Obviousness in Inherency

    The Federal Circuit reversed. Indeed, it found that the Board committed legal error by improperly relying on inherency to find obviousness and in its analysis of motivation to combine the references. The court found that the Board erred in relying on inherency to dismiss evidence showing unpredictability in the art in rejecting Honeywell’s argument that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine the references with a reasonable expectation of success. It referred to an…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Conference & CLE Calendar

    September 6, 2017 – “Sovereign Immunity as Inter Partes Defense: Legal Guidance and Analysis of Impact on Licensing” (Technology Transfer Tactics) – 1:00 to 2:00 pm (Eastern) September 12, 2017 – “Addressing and Understanding the Significant Developmen…

    Continue Reading ...



    $$ Power flows from the wheels to the engine and is dissipated frictionally in it, providing "engine braking". / 動力は車輪からエンジンへ流れ、エンジンにおいて摩擦的に発散され、「エンジンブレーキ」を提供する。(USP8292781)

    $$ Preferably, the drive shaft is configured to frictionally engage a friction rod. / 好ましくは、駆動軸は、摩擦ロッドに摩擦係合するように構成される。(USP8254022)

    $$ Rather in this case a locking screw 23 is used to screw through a tapped bore 24 in the collar 4 to engage frictionally the exterior of the tube 9. (USP5579862)

    $$ Alternatively, the rotation of the flicker wheel 30 may be frictionally imparted to each document deflector 34 to bring it towards the undeflected position. (USP4650178)


    Continue Reading ...
  • Citing References

    For patents issued thus far in 2017, the average patent lists 44 references submitted by the patent applicant for the examiner to consider. The median patent, however, only has 10 applicant cited references.  The gulf between the mean and median is the result in skew in the dataset — here caused by a fairly small […]

    Continue Reading ...
  • Will Andrei Iancu be more "pro-patent" than Michelle Lee?

    A story on patents in the Financial Times ends with the text

    Still, the pendulum may be about to shift again. The Trump administration has nominated Andrei Iancu, an LA-based lawyer who has worked with clients in both pharma and Big Tech, to be head of the USPTO. The US Supreme Court will also soon hear a case questioning the legality of the entire non-court patent adjudication system.

    It will be a chance for lawmakers to think about exactly what kind of digital ecosystem they want to create.

    link: https://www.ft.com/content/74114a6c-8f28-11e7-9084-d0c17942ba93

    Of Andrei Iancu, Law360 wrote:

    In the 2008 article [in JPTOS], co-authored like most of his writings with an associate at his firm, Iancu noted that the rapid pace of development in the software industry makes it difficult for the patent office to search for prior art. That means that patents of “suspect validity” are often used as a “bargaining tool to charge exorbitant fees” from those who license them, he wrote.

    “Since computer software, in its most base form, is nothing more than a series of algorithms and mental processes, it is not clear that software, in any form, is patentable subject matter,” Iancu wrote, adding that “it may be up to Congress to rescue the patentability of computer programs — if that is deemed desirable.”

    Later, in a 2010 article in the Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, Iancu noted the importance of software to modern technology and suggested drawing a distinction between patents on software and those on methods of doing business.

    “Software patents present an altogether different set of issues than business methods, and the two need not be addressed in the same way,” he wrote. “Lumping the two together creates a risk that the patentability of software will be unnecessarily limited.”

    link: https://www.law360.com/articles/958799/uspto-pick-s-writings-give-hints-to-his-patent-views

    Continue Reading ...