Patent Baristas

Translation has traditionally been one of the more over-looked aspects of the patent and intellectual property business, but with the IP landscape continuing to grow and expand across international borders, it has become a vital part of the overall “IP workflow.” Whether it’s translating a patent application for filing in another country, patent examiners at […]

Browsing the aisles of Costco, taking in the consumerism the Christmas has come to denote, my mind was drawn to its jewelry and watch section. As I was feasting my eyes upon baubles and trinkets I have no use for, I recalled the not so recent Ninth Circuit Costco v. Omega which in turn reminded […]

The still fresh ruling by CAFC on Goeddel v. Sugano reversed the decision by BPAI which held that Sugano is entitled to its filing date of its initial Japanese application and BPAI consequently awarded Sugano priority on counts of two interferences. The decision highlights the BPAI’s misinterpretation of PHOSITA’s function and we are encouraged to […]

This morning, the Supreme Court issued its long awaited opinion in Bilski v. Kappos, a case which dealt with whether new processes were patentable only if they were performed with a specific machine, or resulted in a physical transformation of some article. In the run up to the decision, many commentators had predicted that the Court […]

The Japanese Patent Office (“JPO”) introduced a revised version of the “Examination Guidelines for Medical Inventions,” in October of 2009.  The revised guidelines are applicable to all patent applications being examined after November 1, 2009, including pharmaceutical products and medical devices. Methods for Collecting data from the human body In Japan, the examination guidelines stipulate […]

Those of you who regularly prosecute patents in Australia will be aware that Australia has a unique approach to inventive step/non-obviousness. Specifically, Australian law differs from international norms in two fairly notable ways: Firstly, not all prior art references are citable. Rather, in order to be citable, a prior art reference must firstly be shown […]

Eastman’s divestment of its PET business in the EU to Indorama ended up in Delaware federal court as the licensor’s patent infringement action.  Eastman Chemical Company v. AlphaPet Inc. et al. (09-CV-971).  Named as defendants are the Indorama licensees, and affiliates, and a U.S. subsidiary, AlphaPet. The complaint raises interesting problems about a licensor suing […]

Many readers of Patent Baristas may have noticed that the site has been “off-line” for a bit.  With my deepest apologies, I have found myself in the midst of a family emergency that is requiring most of my time and leaving little or no time for extras like blogging.  Since the difficulties may be extended […]