About Gene Pierson

This author has not yet filled in any details.
So far Gene Pierson has created 151 blog entries.

PATENT ATTORNEY – SAMPLE TEMPLATE DRAFT “SUMMARY:”

PATENT ATTORNEY - SAMPLE TEMPLATE DRAFT “SUMMARY:” [0002]   Embodiments disclosed herein provide systems and methods for [[insert what application is about, 1 paragraph]]. [0003]   In embodiments, [[insert language from independent claim 1]]. [0004]   In embodiments, [[insert language from dependent claim 2]]. [0005]   In embodiments, [[insert language from independent claim 3]]. [0006]   Repeat for all claims. [...]

By |2013-07-16T12:47:13-05:00July 10th, 2013|Template Series|Comments Off on PATENT ATTORNEY – SAMPLE TEMPLATE DRAFT “SUMMARY:”

PATENT ATTORNEY – SAMPLE TEMPLATE DRAFT “BACKGROUND:”

PATENT ATTORNEY - SAMPLE TEMPLATE DRAFT “BACKGROUND:” [0002]         Conventionally, [[insert background of your invention], including high level of overview of the art. This should be around a paragraph]. However, with conventional systems for [your invention category] there is no way of determining [purpose of your invention]. [0003]         Accordingly, needs exist for alternative approaches that effectively [...]

By |2013-07-16T12:48:21-05:00July 10th, 2013|Template Series|Comments Off on PATENT ATTORNEY – SAMPLE TEMPLATE DRAFT “BACKGROUND:”

PATENT ATTORNEY – TEMPLATE SERIES, FIELD OF THE DISCLOSURE

PATENT ATTORNEY - SAMPLE TEMPLATE DRAFT “FIELD OF THE DISCLOSURE:” [0001]         Examples of the present disclosure are related to techniques for [[insert high level of what the inventive concept]]. More particularly, embodiments may [[inset high level of inventive concept with novel features]]. PURPOSE: MPEP section 608.01(C) discloses that the field of the invention part of [...]

By |2013-07-16T12:50:40-05:00July 10th, 2013|Template Series|Comments Off on PATENT ATTORNEY – TEMPLATE SERIES, FIELD OF THE DISCLOSURE

SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. v. REA

OVERVIEW: This case is related to a review of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, where the Court of Appeals reversed the Board’s decision that the patent claims would have been unobvious in view of the prior art. Synthes owns the US Patent No. 7,128,744, which is directed to a system for using plates [...]

By |2013-07-09T20:32:54-05:00July 9th, 2013|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. v. REA

Initial Review of a Bitcoin related published Patent 2013/0166455

What is a bitcoin? A bitcoin is a form of electronic currency that can be transferred through a computer or smartphone without an intermediate bank or financial institution.  A user can have a digital wallet to receive and/or transfer bitcoins, where the accounts and/or bitcoins are encrypted. When purchasing a bitcoin, a purchaser receives a [...]

By |2013-07-03T14:54:46-05:00July 3rd, 2013|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on Initial Review of a Bitcoin related published Patent 2013/0166455

FRESENIUS USA, INC. v. BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC

OVERVIEW: This is an interesting case that deals with Res judicata or claim preclusion. In this case, damages were being decided after the case appealed at the federal circuit while claims of a patent were being invalidated at the USPTO. Appellant Fresenius brought a declaratory judgment action against Baxter alleging claims 26-31 of US Patent [...]

By |2013-07-02T14:52:11-05:00July 2nd, 2013|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on FRESENIUS USA, INC. v. BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC

What are Examiner Interviews? How should I prepare and conduct one?

Examiner interviews are good ways that an application (a patent attorney and/or inventor) can discuss an office action and the related art with the issuing Examiner. Typically, Examiners will issue office actions with 35 USC 102 or 35 USC 103 with art they use to meet each and every element of your claims. In my [...]

By |2013-07-01T21:06:50-05:00July 1st, 2013|Patent Basics|Comments Off on What are Examiner Interviews? How should I prepare and conduct one?

CONVOLVE v. COMPAQ COMPUTER

OVERVIEW: This case involves Convolve, Inc (Convolve) appealing the decision of the United State District Court that granted summary judgment in favor of Compaq Computer Corp and Seagate technology, that Compaq and Seagate did not misappropriate trade secrets, claims of patent number 6,314,473 and ‘4,916,635 assigned to Convolve were invalid, and that Compaq and Seagate [...]

By |2013-07-01T18:36:21-05:00July 1st, 2013|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on CONVOLVE v. COMPAQ COMPUTER

What Is Induced Infringement In Patent Law?

Induced infringement is a form of secondary liability for patent infringement, where a person does not commit direct infringement but creates or sells a product with advertising or instructions that will cause the consumers of the products to act in direct infringement. Statutory language of induced infringement can be found in 35 USC 271(b). To [...]

By |2013-06-30T20:17:23-05:00June 30th, 2013|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on What Is Induced Infringement In Patent Law?

An Austin Patent Attorney’s Review of: RAMBUS INC. v. REA

OVERVIEW: The technology at issue in this case related to dynamic random access memory devices (DRAM). In DRAM storing information occurs when memory is “written” to the memory device and a “read’ operation is performed when memory is retrieved from the memory device. DRAM utilize a clock signal to execute the read and write signals, [...]

By |2013-06-28T15:37:04-05:00June 28th, 2013|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on An Austin Patent Attorney’s Review of: RAMBUS INC. v. REA
Go to Top