• A pioneer in the world of university tech transfer to share his insights in a free webinar

    IP Finance has been informed of an exciting free webinar that will take place next Wednesday, November 15, at 3:00 PM- 4:00 pm British Standard

    Time. The topic of the program, under the auspices of OxFirst, will be “Academic Entrepreneurship & IP Management in Universities” and the speaker will be the distinguished Professor Graham Richards. Prof Richards was a founding member of Oxford University’s tech transfer office and a successful inventor, whose IP formed the foundation of a multi-million publicly traded company. He will talk about the core elements of turning science into business.

    About the Speaker

    Professor Graham Richards is a pioneer of British technology transfer. The university spin out that he established — Oxford Molecular Group, was the first university spin out after the UK introduced a regulatory change that attributed the IPR generated in a university context to the university itself. Under the leadership of Professor Richards, Oxford Molecular Plc grew from a £350,000 start-up to a £450 million public company. He is also a founding member of the Technology Transfer Office of the University of Oxford and he was a director there for over 20 years. Another flagship project is the publicly traded company IP Group Plc. Originally created out of the necessity to attract further funding for the chemistry department of the University of Oxford, it is nowadays one of the most important investors in technology generated by universities. IP Group Plc is a FTSE 250 company with a market cap of £1 billion.

    How to Join

    Please sign up here with your professional email account. The program organizers will not accept a registration from a personal email address.

    Continue Reading ...



    $$ It is within the scope of the present invention to implement the preliminary response as an immediate confirmation of receipt by the gateway of the request from the client system. / ゲートウェイがクライアント・システムから要求を受信したということの即時確認として仮応答を行うことは本発明の技術的範囲内である。(USP6336135)

    $$ Only the creation of the initial "LEAK" event for each monitor instance is within this code, in allocateMonCono( ). / 各モニタのインスタンスに対して最初の“LEAK”イベントを生成することだけが、このコード、すなわちallocateMonCon()内にある。(USP6330313)

    $$ A preferred coating thickness is within the range of from 100 to 1000 microns (typically 600 to 800 microns). / 好ましい被覆の厚さは、100~1000ミクロン(典型的には、600~800ミクロン)の範囲内である。(USP5364511)

    $$ It is within the scope of the invention, however, to maintain the nozzle-skimmer interface and ion-guiding means at a high positive potential and to maintain the flight tube and detector system at ground potential. / しかしながら、ノズル-スキマー・インターフェース及びイオン・ガイド手段を高い正電位に維持し且つ飛行管及び検出器システムを接地電位に維持することは、本発明の範囲内である。(USP01010354)

    $$ …within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action…

    $$ …within a period of 4 months from the notification of this communication

    $$ …within six months of the due date…


    Continue Reading ...
  • What are the Defenses to Patent Infringement?

    RPost Comm. v. GoDaddy, LLC (Supreme Court 2017) Like Oil States, the new petition for certiorari by RPost is a home-run swing — but will it connect?  The question presented: Is patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, which Congress did not codify in 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), not a cognizable defense in a patent litigation? […]

    Continue Reading ...
  • BRI and how it increases an obviousness determination

    Owens Corning v. Fast Felt (Fed. Cir. 2017) illustrates an example of how the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard increases the chances that an obviousness argument could successfully invalidate a patent claim during a post grant patent review proceeding; and make it more difficult to overcome an obviousness rejection during patent prosecution. It also illustrates how broadening a claimed invention’s field of use could be detrimental to the claim’s validity and make it harder to…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Reminder: PHOSITA is not an Automaton; What is an Automaton?

    University of Maryland Biotech Institute v. Presens Precision Sensing (Fed. Cir. 2017) In a non-precedential decision, the Federal Circuit has affirmed the USPTO handling of the inter partes reexamination of Maryland’s U.S. patent No. 6,673,532. The examiner rejected claims 1, 3– 6, 9–11, 13–16, 19, and 20 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.  That determination […]

    Continue Reading ...
  • USPTO Adopts Rule Adopting Patent Agent-Client Privilege

    The adoption of the final rule, which relates to admissibility in post-grant proceedings, is here, and the substance is: § 42.57 Privilege for patent practitioners. (a) Privileged communications. A communication between a client and a USPTO patent practitioner or a foreign jurisdiction patent practitioner that is reasonably necessary and incident to the scope of the practitioner’s […]

    Continue Reading ...