Global Patent Solutions LLC’s Post

Court Cranks the Clock Back on Opposed Crankshaft Patent Refusal #CaseReviews #IntellectualProperty #Patents #2024patentjudgements #InnovationinEngines #InternalCombustionEnginePatent #IPLaw #MadrasHighCourt #OpposedPistonEngine #PatentAppeal #PatentLaw #PatentRejection #PinnacleEngines #PinnacleEnginesv.controller

LEGAL ALERT | Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit emphasized that private sales won’t help patent owners avoid prior art references.   In this legal alert, Dinsmore intellectual property attorney Anu Sharma explains why filing your patent application before making any sale is crucial and the importance of providing all potentially relevant information upfront when arguing a prior art exception.

Patent Drawing Case Studies: Real-Life Examples of Successful Illustrations https://lnkd.in/gSw6DU5C #patentlaw #PatentAttorney #patent #lawfirm #IntellectualProperty

NEW ARTICLE! 2023 brought several significant changes to patent law. This article outlines five updates that lawyers should keep in mind when advising their business clients. Patent Law Updates for Business Lawyers: 2023-2024, by Nate Louwagie Seung Sub (Elvis) Kim. #patentlaw #intellectualproperty #patents #patentlawupdates

There are few things in patent prosecution more frustrating for Applicants, attorneys, and agents than a new grounds of rejection in an examiner's answer. Although they are permitted (MPEP 1207.03) they clearly violate the "clear issue" requirement for final rejections (MPEP 706.07). A new ground of rejection in an examiner's answer may be undesignated. In that case, it's important to know the options available (MPEP 1207.03(b)&(c)). In the attached decision, the examiner introduced an undesignated new ground of rejection by citing, for the first time, a NPL reference in support of a two reference combination. (See page 11 of the examiner's answer, and the PTO-892 in the file wrapper.) Fortunately, the NPL, while maybe helpful to one aspect of the rejection, was fatal to another aspect of the rejection (see page 3 of the reply brief) as was expertly pointed out by Applicant's representative. One quibble I would make is that I would have clearly pointed out to the Board that the examiner's answer contained an undesignated new ground of rejection and that Applicant was electing to maintain the appeal rather than petition for re-opening. I then would have cited In re Hoch (MPEP 2142) to argue that if the NPL was necessary to support the rejection it should have been/be included in the statement of rejection. That way, if the Board affirmed it would be an affirmance on a new ground of rejection and Applicant would be provided an opportunity after the decision to amend/argue the new grounds.

Patent Drawing Resources for DIY Inventors: Tools, Tutorials, and Templates https://lnkd.in/ga_7scCB #patentattorney #lawfirm #patent #intellectualproperty

On July 31, 2024, the CAFC clarified that a secret sale is insufficient to pre-date a prior art reference under 35 U.S.C. §102(b)(2)(B). Patent owners should note: - Private sales don’t protect against intervening applications. - File your patent application before making a sale. - Provide all corroborating evidence for public disclosure exceptions. For a detailed analysis, read the full Dinsmore & Shohl LLP alert by Anu Sharma. #PatentLaw #CAFC #IntellectualProperty #DinsmoreCleveland Read more: [Excluding Prior Art based on Private Sales? Federal Circuit Says No.](https://lnkd.in/gykc6wWk)

Patent Drawing Case Studies: Real-Life Examples of Successful Illustrations https://lnkd.in/g_3D3F32 #patentlaw #PatentAttorney #patent #lawfirm #IntellectualProperty

“Printed publications” were considered references that are publicly available before the priority date of the challenged patent so that a person should not be able to obtain a patent on knowledge that is already part of the relevant public domain. But what about an application that was filed before the filing date of the challenged patent, but was not published until after the filing date? #ip #patents #intellectualproperty #law

The purpose of patent law is to incentivize innovation by granting inventors exclusive rights to their inventions for a limited period. Double patenting is generally discouraged because it undermines this principle by allowing an inventor to extend exclusive rights beyond the intended time frame. Different jurisdictions may have variations in their rules and practices regarding #doublepatenting, so inventors and #patent practitioners must know the specific regulations in each relevant #jurisdiction. #patentlaw #useful #information #IPR #IPQORE