Home » Patent Law Updates » New Statutes, Regulations and Rules
Patent Law Summaries
| New Judicial Opinions | |
| New Settlements and Verdicts | |
| » | New Statutes, Regulations and Rules |
| New Proposed Legislation |
Page 1 of 1 of Patent Law Summaries » New Statutes, Regulations and Rules
USPTO Identifies New Applicability Date of Certain Provisions in "Claims and Continuations" Final Rule
Clarification of Patent Regulations Currently in Effect, and Revision in Applicability Date of Provisions on Patent Applications
PTO–P–2008–0035,
08/07/2008
USPTO Issues Final Rule To Adjust Patent Fees
37 CFR Parts 1 and 41, Docket No. PTO–C02008–0004, RIN 0651–AC21, 08/14/2008
USPTO Publishes New Rules regarding Ex Parte Appeals Before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
37 CFR Part 41, [Docket No. PTO–P–2007–0006], RIN 0651–AC12, 06/10/2008
Revisions and Technical Corrections Affecting Requirements for Reexamination
Docket No.: PTO-P-2005-0016, 37 CFR Parts 1 and 41, RIN 0651-AB77, 04/16/2007
Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Docket No.: PTO–P–2007–0031, 10/10/2007
Patent Law Commentaries
Following are Patent Law Commentaries elaborating on the significance of the most important of the Patent Law Summaries.
Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics: Reviving Exhaustion, Applying It to Method Patents
Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics
Posted: 08/15/2008
Commentary: In the case Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics, ___ U.S. ____, 128 S.Ct. 2109 (2008), the United States Supreme Court clarifies and expands upon its holding in United States v. Univis Lens Co. In Univis, the court held that a patent is exhausted upon the sale of unfinished components that substantially embody the patent and which have no use except to practice the patent. In Quanta, the court clarified that the same analysis applies to process or method patents, not just product patents: When a component substantially embodies the process and cannot be used for any purpose other than to practice the patent, the process patent is exhausted upon sale of that component. The decision makes it more difficult for patentees to extract royalties from multiple parties for the same device. However, it revitalizes the integrity of the exhaustion doctrine and provides more certainty for downstream purchasers. More...
Related summary: Supreme Court Reverses Federal Circuit’s Ruling, Finds in Favor of Quanta in LG’s Computer Technology Patent Suit
Acumed II Addresses the Issue of Claim Preclusion and When a Patent Claim Could Have Been Brought
Acumed, LLC v. Stryker Corp., et al.
Posted: 05/20/2008
Commentary: In the recent case of Acumed, LLC v. Stryker Corp.,et al., (No. 2007-1115) (Fed. Cir., May 13, 2008) (“Acumed II”), the Federal Circuit addressed the meaning and application of language barring re-litigation of claims that “could have been brought” in a prior patent infringement case. More...
Related summary: Federal Circuit Reverses District Court’s Ruling in Acumed v. Stryker, Remands Case
Agrizap and Ortho-McNeil: Two Sides of Post-KSR Obviousness
Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc., et al.
Posted: 05/16/2008
Commentary: In KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. ____, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007), the U.S. Supreme Court broadened the applicable test in determining whether an invention is “obvious.” As predicted by patent law pundits, the KSR decision was followed by a number of cases in which infringers defended their actions – and won – by having the patent in question declared invalid for obviousness under this new standard. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the CAFC) recently heard and decided two separate cases that addressed the issue of obviousness post-KSR. These cases shed further light on the new standard for determining obviousness. While the results are quite different, the lessons for practitioners are, ultimately, the same. More...
Related summary: Federal Circuit Affirms Validity of Ortho-McNeil’s Patent On Epilepsy Drug Topomax
Judkins v. HT Window Fashion: Can’t Stop a Patent Holder from Contacting Your Clients About Possible Infringement
Judkins v. HT Window Fashion Corp.
Posted: 05/13/2008
Commentary: When a patent-holder discovers infringement, it’s not unreasonable for him to want to notify the alleged infringer’s clients of the infringement. Of course the alleged infringer would prefer that this communication with its clients not take place. But, as the Judkins case instructs, it will be nearly impossible for an alleged infringer to stop a patent holder from contacting its clients. More...
Related summary: Patent Owners Allowed to Warn Buyers about Competitor's Infringing Products: Judkins v. HT Window Fashion Corp.
Tafas v. Dudas: USPTO’s Efforts to Limit Patent Applicant Rights Are Void
Tafas v. Dudas, et al.
Posted: 05/12/2008
Commentary: In an effort to attack its notorious backlog, the USPTO enacted a group of rule changes that placed limits on, among other things, the number of claims a patent applicant could include and the number of times an applicant could amend and continue his application. Traditionally, patent applicants could take unlimited bites at the apple in their pursuit of their patent. In Tafas, the court struck down the rule changes as null and void, and exceeding the scope of the USPTO’s authority. While the Office has the power to enact procedural rules regarding the process, it cannot enact substantive rules – these rules are substantive since they dramatically alter existing policy and the rights and obligations of patent applicants. More...
Related summary: USPTO Rules Are Void For Being Contrary to Law, VA District Court Declares
