Patent Baristas

In an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times entitled “Patently Ridiculous,” the editors state that “something has gone very wrong with the United States patent system. That’s not really “new” as far as patent reform claims of this sort go but the editors do finally concede that the problem lies “not just with the […]

[This is the tenth and final post in a series of postings regarding the various proposals in the Patent Act of 2005.] Post Grant Opposition Proceeding in the USPTO On the third Tuesday of the month, if the moon is full, you may file an opposition to a patent grant. The actual provision is not […]

[This is the ninth in a series of postings regarding the various proposals in the Patent Act of 2005.] Prior User Rights The proposed legislation expands the prior user rights defense. Currently, 35 U.S.C. 273(b) provides that it shall be a defense to infringement if the accused, acting in good faith, had actually reduced the […]

[This is the eighth in a series of postings regarding the various proposals in the Patent Act of 2005.] Inter Partes Reexamination The American Inventor’s Protection Act (The American Inventors Protection Act was enacted November 29, 1999, as Public Law 106-113 (AIPA) introduced the concept of inter partes reexamination prospectively (post-1999). (35 U.S.C. 314). This […]

[This is the seventh in a series of postings regarding the various proposals in the Patent Act of 2005.] Continuation Applications Ah, the ghost of Jerome Lemelson lives and continues to rattle his chains. (Even though his patents were adjudged invalid in Symbol Technologies Inc. et al. v. Lemelson Medical, Education & Research Foundation LP […]

[This is the sixth in a series of postings regarding the various proposals in the Patent Act of 2005.] Injunctions And we’re back to the original law in this match of patent reform ping-pong. (35 U.S.C. § 283 mandates that the courts may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the […]

[This is the fifth in a series of postings regarding the various proposals in the Patent Act of 2005.] Apportionment of Damages for Infringement in the Case of a Combination If 35 U.S.C. 271(f) remains unchanged, there may be some relief offered to defendants by the proposal that damages should be assessed according to the […]

[This is the fourth in a series of postings regarding the various proposals in the Patent Act of 2005.] Willful Infringement The phrase treble damages strikes terror into the heart of all non-patentees. It further promotes a balancing act between maintaining an ostrich mentality and risking that curiosity will kill the cat. An individual who […]