We’re rewarding the question askers & reputations are being recalculated! Read more.
28

Yes, there is a process for invalidating older patents. It is called reexamination. However, the process is costly (~$16k in filing fees) and somewhat complex. Provided you have the killer prior art that is needed to invalidate a patent, you will need more skin in the game than simple indignation to go this route. But you can still ask for or post prior ...


9

For the moment, I'm going to ignore the possibility that their patent actually covers something significantly different than your tracker, and just deal with the matter of dates. They have 1 year following the invention within which to file the patent, so your invention would need to predate the patent by at least 1 year to qualify as statutory prior art. ...


7

One reason for having dependent claims in the first place is that they can potentially stand on their own even if the claim that they depend from is deemed invalid. So no, if a particular claim has prior art it doesn't necessarily mean that its dependent claims will also be invalidated. However, depending on the particular prior art they could very well be ...


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

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

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

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

Any claims in a patent application not rejected by the patent examiner (i.e. covered by the prior art) would be considered to be allowable. Just because a piece of prior art may not cover all the claims does not mean it is "bad" prior art. This type of prior art could be used in an obvious-type rejection.


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

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

Yes. An issued patent is presumed to be valid, but a challenger can produce prior art to demonstrate that the claims of the patent were anticipated or rendered obvious. There are administrative post-grant procedures for challenging an issued patent, and, of course, anyone who is sued by a patent holder can support a defense of invalidity by ...


2

This is a highly specific system patent. The claims are so narrow that that what you did would have to be almost completely identical to have any relevance. You're probably thinking that something they do that you also did is the innovative element - it's not. There's no significant innovation here; all they're patenting is this very particular way of ...


2

To qualify as prior art, a reference needs a verifiable date attached to it. Depending on the provenance, a blog posting might suffice in and of itself. Even if it fails, the content of the blog post might lead to other published material that does qualify as prior art. Also, the proposed prior art has to be "published." Publication means that it is (...


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

Regarding the "it's easily correctable": Don't all the listed inventors have to agree to a change? If A, B are listed, and A says later that B was not an inventor, but B says (s)he was... presumably this dispute has to be resolved before the inventorship problem can be corrected. Could there be a case where it is not easily resolved? [Ran out of ...


2

The order of the named inventors on a patent doesn't matter, for legal purposes anyway. Technically, a patent with incorrectly named inventors is not enforceable. However this will likely be a non-issue because even if the patent's assignee ever decides to enforce the patent and the accused infringer figures out there's an inventorship issue, it's easily ...


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 secure ...


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

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

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 ...


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 ...


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