4

Due to the application beeing pre AIA, I had to revise my previous answer Lets start with two of the three conditions for patentability - novelty and non-obviousness (the third is usefulness). Prior art for both is the same (see mpep 2141.01) ! This is based in: (Post AIA, so for your question the next section is not relevant, however I find it very ...


4

For your second question: No. Now to the first one, as this is harder. If the claims state something similar to after adding two to two we get 4 but 4 is sufficiently close to 77 so whatever or we add 2 and 2 and procede, then this should not in any way forbid you to use your invention. BUT: And this is actually what you asked: Are patent claims valid ...


4

You haven't said what is actually claimed. But that's what matters. I have assumed that the claims relate to the particular method that you note is described. Enablement requires that the reader can put the claimed invention into practice. In the case you describe, you have implied that the reader could perform the steps of the method. It is therefore ...


3

It depends. If they are claiming (in the claims) the results or something related to the results, then maybe. If however they are claiming for example the method and it's described in a way that someone can reproduce it, then probably not. It doesn't matter if the results of that method are bogus if someone skilled in the art could still perform the method....


3

The 'invention' is defined by the patent claims. Joint inventorship also is a claim by claim analysis. In other words, dick and jane invent AB, but jane only invented B, so dick can claim only A and is not required to include jane as inventor, but if a claim to AB is made then dick and jane both must be named as inventors.


3

You can watch for the application to be published, but that could take a while. You could inform the person in question that not listing all inventors will essentially invalidate the application "Worked on an idea" will need some clarification. Did all the parties participate with meaningful conceptual input?


3

In theory anything "published" anywhere at anytime in the past is fair game as prior art. The particular issue you bring up is called "Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property" and is a current, important topic in the IP community. This is a link to a discussion at WIPO on it here Patents that might fall under this category may be very deserved due ...


3

If the application is still pending, you may even attempt filing third-party submission (if still possible), and state that the publication is relevant to 101/utility. However, it sounds like this period has passed. Following on from Maca's comments about duty of good faith, it may be considered a responsibility of the applicants to bring the publication ...


2

George White provided a concise response that should serve as a general guide to similar questions. It would be nice for this board to have routine responses distilled out, perhaps in a decision-tree format... George's well thought out answer could serve as the appropriate process step for patent on invention granted, re-exam started, resource links. This ...


2

As documented at the site the link in your question points to, this was a subject of large push-back. There was a re-examinaion process started that is still pending and it looks like the one law suit has been stayed waiting for the result of the re-exam. This can be looked up and followed in the USPTO Public PAIR. If you up an application or patenting PAIR ...


2

Yes - in a way the '489 patent is from a refiling of the '496 patent. Technically, the later patent was issued from an application that was a continuation of the application that resulted in the earlier patent. You can read that in the fine print on the front of the later patent. In a continuation application the specification and drawings are generally ...


2

Ron's answer is basically correct. The part of a patent that might or might not be infringed is a claim. It is also a claim that might or might not be found invalid. As an example, a patent could have 20 or more claims, most of which are narrowed versions of a small handful of key, independent claims. One of the reasons for having a claim set with ...


2

WO2009014735 System, method and apparatus for secure multiparty located based services Publication date: Jan 29, 2009 Filing date: Jul 23, 2008 Priority date: Jul 23, 2007 This is a good example, it discusses "distributing shares" and such, which could be considered a prize? Abstract A computer system implements a method to provide ...


2

Any claim that covers embodiments rendered obvious by the description of the previous patent is invalid. At first glance it appears that the newer patent adds a lot of constraints to the structure; these additional constraints might not be obvious even if the purpose of the invention is the same. Just because a car has already been patented doesn't mean ...


2

I think that the best procedure would be the following one : 1) Fill a provisory patent with your idea and much as detail as possible 2) Offer the company to set a bilateral NDA between you and them 3) Compare the provisory patent. If you bring new material, then you'll have something to negotiate. You should not forget that claims could be modified at ...


2

This change in EPA rules covers production and use of products containing HFC-134a, but it does not affect the validity of the patent (a patent is not a product). Further, the independent claim in the patent grant covers any inert gas in a class of compounds: A method for modifying animal behavior when animal performs an undesirable behavior, ...


2

Having a patent does not give someone the right to actually make the patented item. It only gives them the right to try to stop others from making it. If you think something is harmful and no one should be doing it, that is not a patent issue. If company A has a patent and there is nothing in their way of making it, company A only can do it. All things being ...


2

So is this the extent of options for patent challenges at the EPO -- i.e. no options after 9 months? Correct. Once the 9 month opposition period finishes, the only way to revoke another person's patent is to commence a revocation action in each country. For example, if a European patent was validated in the UK, France, and Germany, this would require three ...


2

I worked for the patent office for a little while in a TC that does some software and non transitory medium patent applications. I would take a look at the MPEP (Manual of Patent Examining Procedure) on the USPTO website if you haven't already. I doubt they would overturn a granted patent or even review it except for very peculiar circumstances. If you are ...


2

I am not familiar with this technology, but in my opinion your summaries about the two US patents are not accurate, or are so simple that obviously one would conclude that the patents could not have been granted. Patents are granted when the claims are directed to a technical product or process (not a concept as you put it, concepts cannot be patented) that ...


1

Off hand, it looks like all the claims require a "switch" to determine when a page is turned in order to know what page the reader is on. You might try to design around it by coming up with a way that doesn't use a switch. I put switch in quotations because a study of the specification would be needed to understand how broadly they are using that term. For ...


1

After publication, when you can see the claims, you might find that the references you previously submitted are not as on-target as you assumed and end up filing both. A consideration might be that a third party submission can be done anonymously.


1

If by righteous you mean valid, one answer is that EP1512055B1 is a granted patent and thus legally enforceable. I looked on Espacenet and the European Patent Register for cited documents and the Takahashi paper wasn't listed (which doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't considered). However, the equivalent US patent US7017686 does show the Takahashi paper as a ...


1

What you linked to is not a US patent. It is a patent application. It may never get to be a patent. You can use the US Public Pair site to determine the status of this application. At this point, the application is still not granted. The latest communications from the examiner is: "Final Rejection Mailed" on 07-10-2017. Final rejections aren't necessarily ...


1

I only quickly reviewed the patents. The applications you cited are now issued patents: US9087048B2, US9015037B2, US9176957B2. They seem to be specifically aimed at automatic fact checking of posted or broadcast information. I would gather to reduce the amount of fake news. Read the claims of the linked documents and if you still think they are too broad, ...


1

This prior art search has been posted for a while with little response. As I am not a patent attorney, this response is based on my best understanding and if there are inaccurate statements, I hope others will edit the answer. This is a design patent and not a utility patent. Design patents cover ornamental design for an object having practical utility. As ...


1

Doubtful. Based on the claims (which are what determines the metes and bounds of patent protection and are what would be scrutinized under an Alice analysis), it seems like substantially more than just an a abstract idea or simple implementation on a general computing device, which were address in Alice. For example, check out the independent claims: Claim ...


1

Its unclear to us whether both subject matter was same and you have priority over inventive subject matter, however if you feel you have the priority and your disclosure was novelty destroying then you can initiate re-examination over granted patent. Keep in mind that the at that time US was first to invent therefore if your reduction to practice was in fact ...


1

In situations where priority is claimed to a document having different text, priority is determined on a claim-by-claim basis. That is, different claims of a CIP patent may have different priority dates, depending on when the corresponding subject matter was introduced. So you have to go through one claim at a time, for example: claim 1: contains some ...


1

The method of calibrating the sensor is not novel. It is the same method used in most systems to calibrate a sensor. Here is a patent that uses this procedure for calibrating fluid flow. “Electro-pneumatic converter calibration” , Pub # P0859302 A2, Filing Data 1993 Background Of The Invention Electro-pneumatic converters, such as current to pressure ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible