Hot answers tagged

7

The answer to this turns on 35 USC § 102(a), which reads: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless— (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or (2) the claimed invention was described in a patent ...


5

Why does it puzzle you? If it is not available to the public, it is not prior art. I think relevant US provision is here (MPEP 901.02) https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s901.html#ch900_d225b5_2caa7_e7 Notice that it only mentions printed or published provisionals OR provisionals that are publicly available because they ended up to normal filings, ...


4

Demands for a "simple discretionary inquiry" happens when a court disagree with the Federal circuit imposition of a “clear and convincing evidence” standard on a party seeking to establish entitlement to attorney’s fees. The demands for a "simple discretionary inquiry" is under section 285, which means it imposes no specific evidentiary burden, much less ...


4

Is this always true? No. While the basic rule is that a US patent has a term of 20 years from its filing date (assuming all the renewal fees were paid), there are (at least) two ways in which the term of a US patent could be longer than this. The first is by patent term adjustment under 35 USC § 154(b) due to delays by the USPTO. The calculation of this ...


3

Thirty years later - absolutely none. Given the lifetime of a patent is ~20 years, it would have expired by now, in any case.


3

The core thing the specification and claims talk about is a "music information object". It is not just a bunch of arbitrary bits in that it is specified to contain music and other things related to that music like rights management code and maybe the score of the music. The specification actually has a short section where it essentially defines what the term ...


3

Yes, it can. I did a quick search and found over 100 patents with a youtube.com prior art citation. The earliest citations I found are in US 7783710, US 7844507, and US 7934725.


3

It is not clear to me what exactly your question is, but I do not see jury nullification here on the issue of invalidity. The ’314 and ’492 patents were argued obvious. The trial court probably felt it had grounds to rule in favor of the patentee on obviousness before it even went to the jury. However, the Court seems to have allowed the accused infringer ...


3

It is possible that a patent covers a data structure, but it has to be tied to a computer-readable medium and structurally and functionally interrelated to that medium. The USPTO makes a distinction between "functional descriptive material" and "nonfunctional descriptive material." a data structure is a type of functional descriptive material, provided ...


3

The term "Tricryption" does seem to be obscure. It has no weird legal meaning related to security and encryption. The basic legal principle is that the patent claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” The applicant is also free to act as his own lexicographer, meaning the applicant is allowed to ...


3

A dependent claim is ALWAYS valid when its independent claim is valid. However, if an independent claim is invalidated, that DOES NOT ALWAYS necessarily mean that dependent claim is also invalid. However, the procedure for amending the independent claim by including limitations from the dependent claim(s), and the process of examining the patentability of ...


3

You have referred to a US patent (and application). This is only effective in the US, and therefore could not apply in other countries. In addition, by searching for the inventor's name at INPI, it appears that no related Brazilian patent exists. It therefore appears at first blush that this patent (or any equivalents) would not prevent you manufacturing ...


3

Why do you consider this patent tyranny. Someone came up with the idea before you. They spent the time and money to obtain a patent to protect it. The fact that you are a non-profit doesn't mean you aren't potentially reducing the patent holders ability to sell his product. Your best bet is to contact the patent owners and see if you can get permission to ...


3

Priority is governed by 35 USC §119(a). The important part for us is the beginning, which provides: An application for patent for an invention filed in this country by any person who has, or whose legal representatives or assigns have, previously regularly filed an application for a patent for the same invention in a foreign country … It then ends with a ...


3

I hope this is helpful. Ask Patents is not part of the USPTO but is just a group of volunteers trying to provide patent information to the general public. Our answers are not authoritative. The USPTO does have a department of people specifically to work with the offices of other countries. It is called the Office of International Patent Cooperation. A link ...


3

Simply put, yes. A little more precisely, there may be existing patents that the product infringes. Either the product as a whole (a personal cooling unit) or parts of the product (like the straps or the cooling mechanism or the power supply) or the way you make the product (for example, a patent on some particular way of assembling the device). The ...


3

Yes, if their application pre-dated your public disclosure. Another possibility is the person's product came after yours but the examiner does not find your device or anything else like it. A patent might be granted. In your defense, if sued for infringement, you would have your documentation that the information was public before the other person's filing ...


2

I would guess a lot of it is to deal with method claims. Where an apparatus claim covers the device itself, a method claim covers carrying out the steps outlined in the method. In quite a few cases, that could be summarized pretty simply: the patented method is using the product as intended, for its intended purpose. In other cases, however, it's going to ...


2

False marking is potentially still actionable after the recent amendments, just not as a qui tam action under the patent laws. One advantage you already identify is to avoid liability--under the old false marking law or under existing unfair competition or consumer protection laws. Another possibility is to increase the expense to competitors analyzing the ...


2

Answering my own question: What applications are covered under the new rules? The first issue is which applications are dealt with under the old laws and which will be dealt with under the new laws. Two easy categories are: (1) Non provisional applications filed before March 16 - they are treated under the old system. And (2) applications filed on or ...


2

The answer is it depends. If you expect to do business, then as one commenter suggested above, you should consider assigning it to your company. The road to successfully monetizing a patent is probably a bit more complicated than is readily apparent. There are many sources of liability. Given the choice, most individuals would prefer to have these ...


2

Inventorship is a legal issue based of questions of fact. C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Systems, Inc., 157 F.3d 1340, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1998). To be named as an inventor, one must have contributed to the invention, meaning at least one patent claim. See 35 U.S.C. § 116. Further, a joint inventor must have contributed in some significant manner to the conception of ...


2

The administrative staff and examiners at the USPTO are not going to steal your idea. There are several reasons not to worry. One is that they are prohibited from acquiring any ownership rights to a patent while employed there other than by inheritance. Also your application is in the system. There is no way to erase it from the system so there is an ...


2

This bit of new legislation purports to amend Section 285 to allow an accused infringer to file a motion (A) limiting discovery and more importantly, (B) forcing the patentee to pay costs and attorneys' fees if it loses on the issue of infringement or validity. As part of this proposed rule, the moving party can request that the patentee be required to post ...


2

You have it basically right. First an application is submitted and it gets an application number and a tentative filing date. Over the next few weeks it is checked by administrative people for conformance and completeness with respect to formal requirements. They are not looking at content other then that the minimum requirements are met. These include ...


2

To add to the excellent answer above from Micah: You get a patent on the clever part of your product idea because that part is novel and non-obvious and useful. But your shipping product is almost always more than the core clever part. All of the other parts of your product are things susceptible to infringing someone else's rights. This is clear in the ...


2

This is a great question because it elucidates a first principle of US patent law. A patent does not grant its owner the right to build, make or sell anything. A US patent owner has the right to prevent others from building, making or selling in the US what is described in the claims of his patent. With regard to the subject patent 5,636,276, after it has ...


2

They are not patents. They are applications submitted to try to get a granted patent and are by the same inventors. By looking in the USPTO Public PAIR database I see that they were both rejected and both went abandoned. It isn't clear why they filed two similar applications in this case. There are many reasons to file similar applications. Sometimes ...


2

Obtaining a patent is a first step to compete with commercial competitors. According to the The Patent Act, 1970. The following are not inventions according to section 3(k) of Indian Patent Act, 1970 "a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms" Not all the inventions are fall under this category hence some of the ...


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