TOP 10 REASONS TO FILE A PATENT.

1)      Monetary Reasons – Many people file patents to monetarily capitalize one their innovations. By filing and being granted a patent, inventors can gain a monopoly over a technology for twenty years. Therefore, if your technology is revolutionary than any other inventions that build of your claimed invention will require use of a license of [...]

By |2012-12-19T20:33:20-06:00December 19th, 2012|Patent Basics|Comments Off on TOP 10 REASONS TO FILE A PATENT.

AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEY’S OVERVIEW OF OSRAM SYL INC v. AMER INDUCT TECH

AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEY OVERVIEW: This is an interesting case that holds that a claimed “range” limitation may not be met even if cited art discloses a wider range. The full opinion can be found here. http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/12-1091.pdf OSRAM SYLVANIA appealed the district courts grant of summary judgment of invalidity of the independent claims in U.S. Patent [...]

By |2012-12-14T22:42:16-06:00December 14th, 2012|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEY’S OVERVIEW OF OSRAM SYL INC v. AMER INDUCT TECH

How can I monetize an invention by obtaining a patent?

A question I frequently get from prospective clients and inventors is “Why should I patent my invention?” Essentially a patent gives a patent owner the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell, import or export there patented product throughout the United States.  If you disclose your invention and it becomes in [...]

By |2012-12-12T21:53:48-06:00December 12th, 2012|Patent Basics|Comments Off on How can I monetize an invention by obtaining a patent?

An Austin Patent Attorney’s Review of IN RE YAMAZAKI

AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEY OVERVIEW: This case discusses issues with terminal disclaimers. Specifically, this case discusses whether a terminal disclaimer can be withdrawn during reissue proceedings under 35 USC § 251 that were in effect upon issuance of a patent. The full opinion may be found here: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/12-1086.pdf For procedural history, Yamazaki filed a terminal disclaimer [...]

By |2012-12-11T16:54:42-06:00December 11th, 2012|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on An Austin Patent Attorney’s Review of IN RE YAMAZAKI

AN AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEY’S REVIEW OF PREGIS CORP v. KAPPOS

OVERVIEW OF PREGIS CORP v. KAPPOS: In this case Free-Flow and Pregis are competitors in the air-filled packing cushion industry. Essentially, these companies make the air packaging fillers you find in boxes when receiving packages. During the 1990’s, air-packaging became more prevalent over the peanut packaging or using crumpled paper. Free-flow holds 3 patents relating [...]

By |2012-12-11T16:55:32-06:00December 8th, 2012|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on AN AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEY’S REVIEW OF PREGIS CORP v. KAPPOS

AN AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEYS OVERVIEW OF RAYLON v. COMPLUS DATA

OVERVIEW: This case deals with the standards for Rule 11 sanctions for patent cases. Rule 11(b) states by presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after [...]

By |2012-12-07T23:09:31-06:00December 7th, 2012|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on AN AUSTIN PATENT ATTORNEYS OVERVIEW OF RAYLON v. COMPLUS DATA
Go to Top