Source: http://www.patentdocs.org/2017/07/index.html
Timestamp: 2017-11-21 00:50:13
Document Index: 602386039

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 103', '§ 103', '§ 103', '§ 102', '§ 103', '§ 103', '§ 102', '§ 103', '§ 102', '§ 103', '§ 103', '§ 103', '§ 103', '§ 102']

Patent Docs: July 2017
Posted at 11:52 PM in Federal Circuit, Miscellaneous, Novelty, Obviousness, Patent Trial and Appeal Board | Permalink | Comments (4)
Cloud9 Technologies LLC v. IPC Systems, Inc. (PTAB 2017)
Petitioner Cloud9 requested covered business method (CBM) review of IPC's U.S. Patent No. 8,189,566 before the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Due to the claims of the '566 patent not reciting a financial element, the Board denied the petition.
The '566 patent is directed to a trading turret system. As described in the patent's specification:
A trading turret system is a specialized telephony switching system that allows a relatively small number of users to access a large number of external lines and provides enhanced communication features such as hoot-n-holler, push-to-talk, intercom, video and large-scale conferencing. These features are often utilized in the financial industry such as trading floor environments, as well as security/law enforcement, utilities, healthcare, and customer support (e.g., contact centers) environments.
a turret switching system constructed to communicate to a Web server, a turret device, and to a remote communications device via a first communications network, the Web server being constructed to communicate to a client device via a second communications network, and the client device constructed to control switching across a plurality of lines; and
an interface having a button sheet corresponding to a plurality of line selectors and constructed to seize a corresponding line by causing the client device to communicate a predetermined message to the turret switching system over the second communication network.
In its substantive analysis, the Board first described the applicable law. Particularly, the America Invents Act (AIA) defines a CBM patent as one that "claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological inventions." The Board focused on whether claim 1 is directed to a financial product or service, because if the answer to the inquiry is negative, then the issue of whether the patent is for a technological invention becomes moot.
While the term "financial product or service" has been construed to include a large number of monetary matters, it does not include undertakings "incidental to," or "complementary to," a financial activity. This was made clear by the Federal Circuit's opinion last year in Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc. Notably, in order for a claimed invention to be a financial product or service, a financial activity must actually be claimed.
Cloud9 asserted that "[t]he claims recite a method and corresponding apparatus for providing software trading turrets which are utilized in the financial industry, such as trading floor environments," and cited to the specification for support of this viewpoint. Consequently, Cloud9 contended that the '566 patent "claims an activity that is financial in nature: a communication system for trading."
The Board disagreed. Particularly, the Board pointed out that the claim language does not refer to a financial activity -- instead, it recites a turret switching system. Furthermore, the specification does not limit the scope of the claimed system to financial activity. As noted above, the specification explicitly states that the system could also be used in "security/law enforcement, utilities, healthcare, and customer support (e.g., contact centers) environments." Thus, the claim is not directed to a financial activity or an instrumentality used exclusively for financial activities.
Even though the claimed invention could be used by traders, the Board noted that "[i]t is not sufficient that a user of the turret switching device may be a trader, where eventually the trader may use the system's communication functions to conduct work that results in a financial reward." Further, "[t]he usefulness of the claimed communication system to traders does not make a patent covering that system a CBM patent."
Accordingly, the Board ruled that the claims do not recite a financial element, and therefore the patent is not eligible for CBM review.
This ruling is in line with Unwired Planet and other recent Federal Circuit and PTAB decisions. However, it leaves open the possibility that a claimed invention not reciting financial activity, but only described as being useful for certain financial activities, would be considered appropriate for the CBM program. In the weird world of business methods, either outcome would not be surprising.
Posted at 11:21 PM in Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Post-Grant Proceedings | Permalink | Comments (1)
August 3, 2017 - "After Lexmark: Patent Exhaustion Is Not Optional" (American Law Institute) - 12:30 - 1:30 pm (EDT)
August 3, 2017 - "Opportunities and Pitfalls in Joint Development and Patent Licensing under the AIA" (Technology Transfer Tactics) - 1:00 to 2:00 pm (Eastern)
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will be offering the next webinar in its Patent Quality Chat webinar series from 12:00 to 1:00 pm (ET) on August 8, 2017. Charles Kim, Director, Office of Petitions, and Namrata Boveja, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Petitions will introduce attendees to the Office of Petitions, highlight how petitions are used most effectively to advance patent prosecution, share best practices to avoid the need to file unnecessary petitions, and discuss options for filing your petitions electronically.
Instructions for viewing the webinar can be found here.
Additional information regarding the Patent Quality Chat webinar series can be found on the USPTO's Patent Quality Chat webpage.
Posted at 10:33 PM in Conferences & CLE's | Permalink | Comments (0)
The American Law Institute (ALI) will be offering a telephone seminar/audio webcast entitled "After Lexmark: Patent Exhaustion Is Not Optional" on August 3, 2017 from 12:30 - 1:30 pm (EDT). Ira Blumberg of Lenovo; Neer Gupta of Verizon; and Elizabeth S. Weiswasser of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP will discuss the implications for protecting product sales and pricing after the U.S. Supreme Court's latest foray into patent law in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. Topics to be covered during the webcast include:
• development of the law of patent exhaustion
• summary of the Lexmark case
• unanswered questions from the Lexmark case
The registration fee for the program is $199. Those interested in registering for the program, can do so here.
Posted at 10:23 PM in Conferences & CLE's | Permalink | Comments (0)
Technology Transfer Tactics will be offering a webinar entitled "Opportunities and Pitfalls in Joint Development and Patent Licensing under the AIA" on August 3, 2017 from 1:00 to 2:00 pm (Eastern). Andrew Baluch and Chris Paschall, Director of Licensing – Life Sciences, Ohio State University will clarify the risks and benefits facing universities and their industry partners seeking to license jointly developed innovations. The webinar will cover the following topics:
• Understanding how the CREATE Act led the way for evolution to the AIA
• Overcoming Prior Art Based on Joint Inventorship [35 USC 102(b) exceptions]
• Overcoming Prior Art Based on Joint Ownership/Joint Research Agreement [35 USC 102(c) exceptions]
• Pitfall regarding assignee-filed applications [35 USC 118]
• Pitfall regarding secret commercialization as prior art [Helsinn v. Teva]
• Review real-world case examples
• How recent inter-partes review decisions regarding sovereign immunity can affect the structure of future joint development agreements
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will be hosting Invention-Con 2017, the Office's Independent Inventors Conference, on August 11-12, 2017 on the USPTO campus in Alexandria, VA. During the free conference, attendees can attend plenary talks, participate in topic specific small-group breakout sessions, and hear from USPTO officials and experts who will present information on patents, trademarks, and other intellectual property (IP) matters and topics of interest to small businesses.
Posted at 10:14 PM in Conferences & CLE's | Permalink | Comments (0)
Posted at 01:28 AM in Federal Circuit, Inequitable Conduct | Permalink | Comments (13)
PTAB Petition: IPR2017-01115; filed March 24, 2017.
Petitioner Pfizer, Inc. is challenging the '161 patent on three grounds as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). View the petition here.
Related Matters: According to the petition, the '161 patent is presently the subject of inter partes review IPR2016-01614 (Celltrion, Inc.; filed 08/15/2016; instituted 02/24/2017; pending). Also, the '161 patent was the subject of inter partes reviews IPR2015-00415 (Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; filed 12/15/2014; instituted 07/17/2015; terminated 10/01/2015 pursuant to a Request for Adverse Judgment by petitioner); and IPR2015-01744 (Celltrion, Inc.; filed 08/17/2015; terminated 10/06/2015 pursuant to a Motion to Dismiss filed by petitioner).
PTAB Petition: IPR2017-01139; filed March 24, 2017.
Patent at Issue: U.S. Patent No. 6,627,196 ("Dosages for treatment with anti-ErbB2 antibodies," issued September 30, 2003) claims a method for the treatment of a human patient diagnosed with cancer characterized by overexpression of ErbB2 receptor, comprising administering an effective amount of an anti-ErbB2 antibody to the human patient, the method comprising: administering to the patient an initial dose of at least approximately 5 mg/kg of the anti-ErbB2 antibody; and administering to the patient a plurality of subsequent doses of the antibody in an amount that is approximately the same or less than the initial dose, wherein the subsequent doses are separated in time from each other by at least two weeks.
Petitioners Celltrion, Inc., Celltrion Healthcare Co. Ltd., and Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH are challenging the '379 patent on one ground as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). View the petition here.
Related Matters: According to the petition, the '379 patent is the subject of inter partes review IPR2017-00804 (Hospira, Inc; filed 01/30/2017; pending). Also, Petitioners concurrently filed a petition for inter partes review of related U.S. Patent No. 7,371,379 (IPR2017-01140; filed 03/24/2017; pending), which is also the subject of inter partes review IPR 2017-00805 (Hospira, Inc.; filed 01/30/2017; pending).
PTAB Petition: IPR2017-01140; filed March 24, 2017.
Patent at Issue: U.S. Patent No. 7,371,379 ("Dosages for treatment with anti-ErbB2 antibodies," issued May 13, 2008) claims a method for the treatment of a human patient diagnosed with cancer characterized by overexpression of ErbB2 receptor, comprising administering an effective amount of an anti-ErbB2 antibody to the human patient, the method comprising: administering to the patient an initial dose of at least approximately 5 mg/kg of the anti-ErbB2 antibody; and administering to the patient a plurality of subsequent doses of the antibody in an amount that is approximately the same or less than the initial dose, wherein the subsequent doses are separated in time from each other by at least two weeks; and further comprising administering an effective amount of a chemotherapeutic agent to the patient.
Related Matters: According to the petition, the '379 patent is the subject of inter partes review IPR 2017-00805 (Hospira, Inc.; filed 01/30/2017; pending). Also, Petitioners concurrently filed a petition for inter partes review of related U.S. Patent No. 6,627,196 (IPR2017-01139; filed 03/24/2017; pending), which is also the subject of inter partes review IPR2017-00804 (Hospira, Inc; filed 01/30/2017; pending).
Lupin Ltd. v Horizon Therapeutics, LLC.
PTAB Petition: IPR2017-01159; filed March 27, 2017.
Patent at Issue: U.S. Patent No. 9,254,278 ("Methods of therapeutic monitoring of nitrogen scavenging drugs," issued February 9, 2016) claims a method of treating a subject with a urea cycle disorder, the method comprising: administering to the subject in need thereof glyceryl tri-[4-phenylbutyrate] in an amount sufficient to produce a fasting plasma ammonia level that is less than half the upper limit of normal for plasma ammonia level.
Petitioners Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc. are challenging are challenging the '278 patent on three grounds as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). View the petition here.
Related Matters: According to the petition, the '278 patent is the subject of the following litigations: Horizon Therapeutics, LLC. v. Lupin Ltd. et al., 1:16-cv-04438 (D.N.J.), and Horizon Therapeutics, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., 1-16-cv-03910 (D.N.J.). Also, Petitioners concurrently filed a petition for inter partes review of related U.S. Patent No. 9,326,966 (IPR2017-01160; filed 03/27/2017; pending).
PTAB Petition: IPR2017-01160; filed March 27, 2017.
Patent at Issue: U.S. Patent No. 9,326,966 ("Methods of therapeutic monitoring of nitrogen scavenging drugs," issued February 9, 2016) claims a method of treating a subject with a urea cycle disorder, the method comprising: administering to the subject in need thereof glyceryl tri-[4-phenylbutyrate] in an amount sufficient to produce a fasting plasma ammonia level that is less than half the upper limit of normal for plasma ammonia level.
Petitioners Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc. are challenging are challenging the '966 patent on two grounds as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (ground 1) and as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (ground 2). View the petition here.
Related Matters: According to the petition, the '966 patent is the subject of the following litigation: Horizon Therapeutics, LLC. v. Lupin Ltd. et al., 1:16-cv-04438 (D.N.J.). Also, Petitioners concurrently filed a petition for inter partes review of related U.S. Patent No. 9,254,278 (IPR2017-01159; filed 03/27/2017; pending).
Smith & Nephew Inc. v. ConforMIS, Inc.
PTAB Petition: IPR2016-01874; filed September 21, 2016.
PTAB Trial Instituted; entered March 27, 2017.
Patent at Issue: U.S. Patent No. 9,055,953 ("Methods and compositions for articular repair," issued June 16, 2015) claims a surgical instrument for the repair of a diseased articular joint surface of a joint, comprising: an inner surface having a curvature or shape based on information from image data of the diseased articular joint surface; and a slit defining a cutting path through at least a portion of the joint when the inner surface is applied to the diseased articular joint surface.
Petitioner Smith & Nephew Inc. is challenging the '953 patent on four grounds as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). View the petition here. Administrative Patent Judges Beverly M. Bunting, James A. Worth (author), and Amanda F. Wieker issued a decision instituting inter partes review of whether claims 1–3 and 21–23 are obvious over Radermacher; claims 4–6, 10, 12–16, 19, 24–26, 30, 32–36, 40, 50–53, and 55–61 are obvious over Radermacher and Alexander; claims 7–9, 11, 17, 18, 20, 27–29, 31, 37–39, 41–49, and 54 are obvious over Radermacher, Alexander, and Carignan; claims 4–6, 10, 12–16, 19, 24–26, 30, 32–36, 40, 50–53, and 55–61 are obvious over Radermacher and Fell; and claims 7–9, 11, 17, 18, 20, 27–29, 31, 37–39, 41–49, and 54 are obvious over Radermacher, Fell, and Carignan.
Related Matters: According to the petition, the '532 patent is the subject of the following litigation: ConforMIS, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-10420-IT (D. Mass.).
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v Wyeth LLC.
PTAB Petition: IPR2017-01194; filed March 29, 2017.
Patent at Issue: U.S. Patent No. 8,895,024 ("Multivalent pneumococcal polysaccharide-protein conjugate composition," issued November 25, 2014) claims a multivalent immunogenic composition comprising 13 distinct polysaccharide-protein conjugates and a physiologically acceptable vehicle, wherein each of the conjugates comprises a capsular polysaccharide from a different serotype of Streptococcus pneumoniae conjugated to a carrier protein, wherein the serotypes consist essentially of 1, 3, 4, 5, 6A, 6B, 7F, 9V, 14, 18C, 19A, 19F and 23F, and wherein the carrier protein is CRM197.
Petitioner Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. is challenging the '024 patent on three grounds as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (ground 1) and as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (grounds 2 and 3). View the petition here.
Related Matters: According to the petition, Petitioner has filed two Petitions for post grant review of related U.S. Patent No. 9,399,060 (PGR2017-00016; filed 03/22/2017; pending), and (PGR2017-00017; filed 03/24/2017; pending). Petitioner also filed petitions for inter partes review of related U.S. Patent Nos. 8,562,999 (IPR2017-00378; filed 12/01/2016; pending, IPR2017-00380; filed 12/01/2016; pending, and IPR2017-00390; filed 12/02/2016; pending).
Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.
PTAB Petition: IPR2017-00060; filed October 12, 2016.
PTAB Trial Instituted; entered March 29, 2017.
Patent at Issue: U.S. Patent No. 8,992,608 ("Everting heart valve," issued March 31, 2015) claims a system for replacing a heart valve.
Petitioners Edwards Lifesciences Corp., Edwards Lifesciences LLC., and Edwards Lifesciences AG are challenging the '608 patent on eleven grounds as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (grounds 1 and 11), and as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (grounds 2-10). View the petition here. Administrative Patent Judges Neil T. Powell, James A. Tartal (author), and Robert L. Kinder issued a decision instituting inter partes review of whether claims 1–4 are obvious over Spenser and Elliot under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); whether claims 1–4 are obvious over Spenser and Thornton under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); and whether claims 1–4 are obvious over Spenser and Cook, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Related Matters: According to the petition, the '608 patent is the subject of the following litigation: Boston Scientific Corp. et al. v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp., Case No. 1:16-cv-00275 (D. Del.).
Posted at 11:22 PM in Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Post-Grant Proceedings | Permalink | Comments (0)
Article 2 of the Protocol requires that "due account" must be taken of any element that is "equivalent" to an element specified in the claims. However, the UK courts have long been reluctant to recognise a doctrine of equivalents, in the sense that a claim should protect subject matter that is different from, but equivalent to, that specified in the claim. Rather, the courts have applied a doctrine of "purposive construction", in which they seek to determine what the person skilled in the art would have understood the patentee to be using the language of the claim to mean.
The leading case explaining this approach of purposive construction was House of Lords case Kirin-Amgen v TKT[1]. That case involved a claim for recombinant erythropoietin, prepared in a eukaryotic host cell.
In Kirin-Amgen v TKT, the court noted that other jurisdictions, such as the United States, did apply a doctrine of equivalents, but opined that such a doctrine was "born of despair" and that the correct approach was simply to assess what the person skilled in the art would have understood the patentee to be claiming. On the facts of the case, the court held that a skilled person would understand a "host cell" to be a cell that is host to a foreign DNA sequence that encodes erythropoietin or an erythropoietin analogue. TKT's product was not prepared via such a cell, and therefore did not infringe.
The claims of Lilly's patent related to the use of the disodium salt of pemetrexed in the manufacture of a medicament for use in combination with vitamin B12 for the treatment of cancer. A corresponding medicament including pemetrexed disodium and the vitamin (Alimta®) had been successfully marketed by Lilly since 2004. In order to clear the way for marketing of competing products, Actavis applied for declarations of non-infringement in relation to various pemetrexed products comprising the diacid (non-salt) form of pemetrexed or alternative salt forms to disodium (such as dipotassium).
Actavis' position was that their products should not infringe directly because in no sensible way could pemetrexed dipotassium (for example) be said to fall within the expression "pemetrexed disodium" as recited in claim 1 of the patent. Given the background outlined above, and following Amgen v TKT, Actavis could reasonably have expected the courts to take the view that there was no direct infringement of Lilly's patent, and indeed the first instance court and the Court of Appeal did just that. In the UK it is, though, possible to ask the Supreme Court to hear an appeal from a ruling from the English Court of Appeal on a point of law of general public importance, and in this instance the Supreme Court agreed to hear such an appeal.
On appeal, the Supreme Court recognised that the expression "pemetrexed disodium" set out in claim 1 of the patent could not in any sensible way be interpreted so as to cover, for example, pemetrexed dipotassium. However, contrary to the reasoning in Amgen v TKT, the court then held that this should not be the definitive question for determining infringement. Rather, Lord Neuberger, who gave judgment for the court, ruled that a variant that is not covered by the claims as a matter of normal interpretation could nevertheless infringe if it varies from the claimed invention only in an immaterial way.
In reaching this conclusion, the judge noted that Article 2 of the Protocol to Article 69 EPC makes it clear that there is potentially a difference between the interpretation of a claim and the extent of protection conferred by the claim and that, when assessing that difference, equivalents must be taken into account. He also reviewed relevant case law in other EPC states (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands), and noted that many of these states already apply a doctrine of equivalents.
2. Would it be obvious to the person skilled in the art, reading the patent at the priority date, but knowing that the variant achieves substantially the same effect as the invention, that it does so in substantially the same way as the invention?
It is noteworthy that the first question refers to the "inventive concept revealed by the patent". The judge did not explain in detail what is meant by the "inventive concept". He viewed it as requiring consideration of how the invention works, and equated it to terms he identified from other EPC jurisdictions, including a consideration of "the problem underlying the invention" and "the inventive core". Presumably, identification of the "inventive concept" should involve an assessment of the features central to distinguishing the invention over the prior art.
As regards the third question, the judge clarified that the relevant issue is whether or not the feature at issue is essential to the "invention", not whether or not it is essential to the product or process of which the inventive concept is part. For example, a distinction can be drawn between features that contribute to the inventive concept and conventional features that are merely essential to the operation of a particular product or process that embodies the inventive concept (e.g., a conventional wheel might be an essential component of a new and inventive bicycle, but not essential to the corresponding "invention").
The judge further held that the third question should be considered in the light of the specification as a whole and the knowledge and expertise of the skilled person. He also pointed out that the fact that the language of the claim excludes the variant on any sensible reading is not enough to justify the answer "yes". Finally, he emphasised that it is necessary to imbue the skilled person with the knowledge of the variant and the fact that it achieves substantially the same effect as the claimed invention when assessing the third question.
On the facts of the case, the first question was answered positively on the basis that all of Actavis' products worked in the same way as the invention, involving a medicament that is a combination of pemetrexed and vitamin B12. The judge defined the inventive concept of the patent as the manufacture of a medicament which enables the pemetrexed anion to be administered with vitamin B12.
The second question was also answered affirmatively since it was held that it would be appreciated at the priority date that the Actavis products would work in the same way as pemetrexed disodium when administered with vitamin B12. Earlier findings of fact had been made in the first instance Patents Court judgment to the effect that the preparation of other suitable salt forms of a given molecule would not be a predictable exercise. However, the second question presupposes knowledge that the particular variants in question are indeed functional, i.e., they achieve substantially the same result as the invention.
(i) the point at issue is truly unclear if one confines oneself to the description and claims of the patent, and the contents of the file unambiguously resolve the point; or
(ii) it would be contrary to the public interest for the contents of the file to be ignored.
The review of Lilly's prosecution of the application at the European Patent Office established that limitations had been made to original broader claims relating to antifolates generally, in response to objections of lack of disclosure (Article 83 EPC) and lack of clarity (Article 84 EPC). A claim to pemetrexed generally had then been further limited to pemetrexed disodium on the basis of an objection of added subject matter (Article 123(2) EPC).
For the reasons given above, all of Actavis' products were held directly to infringe Lilly's patent, as being immaterial variants of the claimed invention.
Findings of infringement were also made for Actavis' products under French, Italian, and Spanish law based on the original application made for the UK court to determine infringement in these jurisdictions, and applying the doctrine of equivalents provisions that exist in these EPC states.
The Supreme Court's judgment significantly changes previous UK practice for assessing infringement. It has the effect of bringing UK law more in line with other European countries and so may be viewed as a nod towards the Unitary Patent system in which a more harmonised approach to infringement will be required.
Posted at 11:43 PM in Infringement - Literal or DOE, International IP, News from Abroad | Permalink | Comments (3)
Posted at 10:45 PM in Conferences & CLE's | Permalink | Comments (0)
Practising Law Institute (PLI) will be holding its "Advanced Patent Prosecution Workshop 2017: Claim Drafting & Amendment Writing" on July 25-26, 2017 in New York, NY, on August 17-18, 2017 in San Francisco, CA, and on September 12-13, 2017 in Chicago, IL. Patent Docs author Donald Zuhn will chair and Patent Docs author Kevin Noonan will be presenting at the Chicago workshop.
• Concurrent Sessions I - Advanced Specification Drafting Issues -- all concurrent sessions and workshops will provide lectures specific to four different technologies: biotechnology, chemical/pharmaceutical, electromechanical, and electronics/computers
• Concurrent Sessions II - Advanced Claim Drafting Issues
• Concurrent Workshops I - Advanced Claim Drafting
• Subject Matter Eligibility after Mayo/Alice and Latest Federal Circuit Decisions and USPTO Guidance
• Lessons Learned from Four Years of Post-Grant Proceedings
• Concurrent Sessions III - Advanced Patent Prosecution Issues
• Concurrent Workshops II - Advanced Amendment Drafting
• Roundtable Discussions in Advanced Patent Prosecution Issues and Wrap-Up
• The New 35 U.S.C. § 102
• Claim Drafting Workshops -- class to split into technology groups
• Countering the Obviousness Rejection -- class to split into technology groups
• Post Issuance Proceedings Prosecution
• Amendment Workshops -- class to split into technology groups
Posted at 10:11 PM in Conferences & CLE's | Permalink | Comments (0)