[T]he USPTO will be processing recalculation requests under an interim procedure that is available to a patentee whose patent issues prior to March 2, 2010, and who requests it no later than 180 days after the issue date. This procedure is available only for alleged errors in calculation that are specifically identified in Wyeth. A copy of the notice submitted to the Federal Register for publication and the form for patentees to use in requesting a recalculation of patent term is on the USPTO Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/pta_wyeth.pdf.
Protecting your company against patent assertions by non-practicing entities (NPEs) has become a high-cost, high-risk responsibility for patent counsel and litigation management. RPX was formed to help you mitigate this growing problem by enabling you to incorporate defensive patent purchasing into your patent strategy.
Patent litigation by non-practicing entities has increased dramatically in the last decade, driven by a major influx of investment that has allowed NPEs to acquire a growing number of patent rights to use offensively. RPX’s response is to fight fire with fire.
We put our capital to work in your defense, buying patent rights that could otherwise be asserted against you. For a modest annual fee - often less than the cost of a single patent assertion defense - RPX members will have a license to all of the patent rights we have aggregated, thus reducing their exposure to NPE assertions and costs.
RPX has pioneered a new and effective way to address the NPE problem. Find out how we can help your company with our RPX services.
1 Virginia Eastern District Court
2 Texas Eastern District Court
3 Delaware District Court
4 Wisconsin Western District Court
5 California Central District Court
6 Florida Middle District Court
7 Texas Southern District
8 New Jersey District Court
9 Colorado District Court
10 Texas Northern District Court
10 Ohio Northern District Court (tie)
We’re starting our new Intellogist blog with a call to action for the patent community! We’ve been pondering the decision to start a blog for a while, but recently an event occurred which made us realize the time was right. On Friday January 15th, we received the following message from the Boliven Innovation Network team:
After approximately a year of beta product releases and extensive user feedback, the Board of the company has determined that it no longer makes good business sense to continue to operate the Boliven website and associated services. We were happy that over 100,000 unique monthly visitors and over 6,000 registered members found utility from Boliven, but as of the end of last year we had fallen short of some of our other operational and financial goals.
There is no doubt that these are challenging economic times, but it’s still a real shock to see that Boliven has to cease supporting its community of patent professionals despite its apparent success and high registration. The Intellogist staff has always believed that patent information professionals have the potential to create extremely active online communities, but obviously Boliven was unable to create a profitable venture out of supporting one. In the wake of this surprising event, it’s worth asking what they did right, as well as what they did wrong. Did you have a Boliven account? If so, what will you miss about the service? Let us know in our comments section – we want to hear your thoughts!
MPEP § 1402
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 251, the error upon which a reissue is based must be one which causes the patent to be "deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent."
September 24, 2007 づけデクラレーションには以下の記載
The inventor asserted that he believed that “the original patent is at least partially inoperative by reason of claiming more or less than [he] had a right to claim in the original patent.”
The inventor further asserted:
That while I recognize the importance of the aspects of the invention disclosed in the original patent, I did not fully understand the scope of the claims under U.S. law, and thus, when the original application was prepared, I failed to recognize that the disclosed invention was not fully covered by the original claims.
すべて残したものの、審査官はthe reissue declaration cannot satisfy the error required under 35 U.S.C. § 251 because it cannot properly allege that the patent is wholly or partly inoperative or invalid by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent.
Dear Mr. Kappos,
I have been practicing before the USPTO for 12 years now and have seena lot of ridiculous stuff, but this takes the cake. Note the attached"Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment" and the grounds therefore -- theperiod at the end of claim 1 was accidentally caught in the underlineof the word processing selection when indicating the amended language.
Chief Judge Paul R. Michel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuitasked the members of this Project to come together to develop a handbook for trial courts toconsult when deciding issues of compensatory damages in patent infringement cases. The goalwas to create a handbook drafted by a committee, national in scope, with members from thebench, bar and academia, including in-house counsel from a variety of industries, and patentdamages experts. The underlying idea was to benefit from the collective experience of judges,attorneys, academics and economists in how best to achieve the “just, speedy and inexpensivedetermination”1 of patent damages. Recognizing that patent damages law is an area thatcontinues to evolve, this handbook is not an attempt to restate substantive damages law or predictits future evolution but is instead focused on procedural practices that may be helpful in theadjudication of patent damages.