This portion of the blog is directed towards tips that may help patent attorneys in prosecution.

AN AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEY’S REVIEW OF VOTER VERIFIED, INC v. PREMIER ELECTIONS

OVERVIEW: Just in time for tomorrow’s election, an Austin patent attorney will review a recent patent case related with voter verification systems! Among other things, VOTER VERIFIED, INC v. PREMIER ELECTIONS discusses what type of materials qualifies as a “searchable printed publication" under 35 USC §102(b). The patent in question in this case was Reissue [...]

By | 2012-11-05T19:56:54+00:00 November 5th, 2012|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on AN AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEY’S REVIEW OF VOTER VERIFIED, INC v. PREMIER ELECTIONS

Patent Attorney Lessons: The Box Innovations v. Travel Caddy

The Box Innovations v. Travel Caddy 37 CFR § 1.27(a) defines what is a small entity according to the USPTO. Essentially, 37 CFR § 1.27(a) defines a small entity as individual or small business that has only transferred any of it patent rights to another party that is also a person, small business concern, or [...]

By | 2012-10-31T16:06:29+00:00 October 31st, 2012|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on Patent Attorney Lessons: The Box Innovations v. Travel Caddy

Mayo v. Prometheus

The following is an Austin, Texas patent attorney’s overview of Mayo v. Prometheus, and learning lessons for patent attorneys. BRIEF OVERVIEW: Claim 1 of Prometheus’ 6,355,623 patent which is in question in this case, recited: A method of optimizing therapeutic efficacy for treatment of an immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder, comprising: (a) administering a drug providing 6-thioguanine [...]

By | 2012-10-28T23:07:27+00:00 October 28th, 2012|Blog, Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on Mayo v. Prometheus

FLO HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC v. DAVID J. KAPPOS

OVERVIEW: This case is a re-examination case with issue pertaining to § 112, ¶ 6, and when means plus function limitations should be invoked if a claim recites a function but does not elaborate a sufficient structure, material of acts within the claim itself to perform the recited function. The patent under reexamination assigned to [...]

By | 2012-10-25T22:56:54+00:00 October 23rd, 2012|Blog, Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on FLO HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC v. DAVID J. KAPPOS

MIRROR WORLDS, LLC, v APPLE INC.

OVERVIEW: Mirror Worlds, LLC had patents with claims directed towards storing computer files in a chronological order based on a time stamp instead of the conventional name of the computer file. By keeping track of all the documents on a computer in a chronologically ordered stream, Mirror Worlds stated that the invention enhances the quality [...]

By | 2012-10-25T22:57:30+00:00 October 22nd, 2012|Blog, Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on MIRROR WORLDS, LLC, v APPLE INC.

IN RE MIRACLE

OVERVIEW: Miracle Tuesday is a fashion company that desired to register a trademark with the word “Paris” in it. The designer of goods for Miracle Tuesday, Jean-Pierre Klifa is a French citizen who lived in Paris for twenty-two years, and currently resides in the United States. The examining trademark attorney rejected Miracle Tuesday mark on [...]

By | 2012-10-25T22:58:15+00:00 October 21st, 2012|Blog, Patent Attorney Takeaways, Trademark Basics|Comments Off on IN RE MIRACLE

IN RE PETER DROGE

BRIEF OVERVIEW: This case is related to re-combinations of DNA sequences that do not occur in nature, where a protein is used to enable the recombination.  The claimed method of the defendant used a modified version of a naturally occurring “wild-type” protein to enable the recombination. The board held that the method as claimed by [...]

By | 2012-10-19T21:10:55+00:00 October 19th, 2012|Blog, Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on IN RE PETER DROGE

1st Media, LLC v. Electronic Arts, Inc

BRIEF OVERVIEW: This case deals with inequitable conduct relating with filing references in information disclosure statements.   The court standard of review is set out in Therasense for non-disclosure of references to the USPTO. see 649 F.3d at 1290-91. In this case, Attorneys for 1st Media failed to disclose various references that were cited in cross-referenced [...]

By | 2012-10-25T22:58:43+00:00 October 19th, 2012|Blog, Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on 1st Media, LLC v. Electronic Arts, Inc

Technology Patents LLC vs T-Mobile (UK)

Brief Overview: TLC claims were directed towards systems where an end user could designate different countries where they could receive texts. The accused products were directed towards systems where different carriers could be selected to communicate with a user. The outcome of this case was based on claim construction, and the court held among other [...]

By | 2012-12-11T16:53:00+00:00 October 18th, 2012|Blog, Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on Technology Patents LLC vs T-Mobile (UK)