Source: https://www.patentdocs.org/2007/08/page/2/
Timestamp: 2020-02-18 07:19:19
Document Index: 376396796

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 112', '§ 1', '§ 112', '§ 1', '§ 719', '§ 112', '§ 1', '§ 102', '§ 1', '§ 121', '§ 102', '§ 120', '§ 1', '§ 121', 'Application No. 08', 'Application No. 08', '§ 102', '§ 710', '§ 710', '§ 710', '§ 710', '§ 710', '§ 1', '§ 2143', '§ 710', '§ 710', '§ 710', '§ 710']

Patent Docs: August 2007
The "Word" on the New Continuation Rules (from the USPTO Webcast) - Part II
In an earlier post, Patent Docs provided a synopsis of that portion of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's August 23, 2007 webcast regarding the portion of the recently-published revised rules of practice regarding continuation applications. This article concerns the other major change in patent prosecution caused by the rules, involving restrictions on total claim numbers permitted without imposing a requirement that an applicant file an Examination Support Document.
In the past, the Office has limited its attempts to restrict the number of claims in an application using purely economic coercion, by increasing the cost of filing independent claims in excess of three and total claims in excess of twenty (and providing a surcharge for multiply-dependent claims). Indeed, a few years ago these efforts led to a proposal that was so burdensome (where applications having fewer than 100 claims could incur fees in excess of ten thousand dollars) that the fee schedule was never implemented. Like the new rules regarding continuation applications, there is nothing in the statute (35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2) that provides for any limitations in the total number of claims that an applicant can file (and in fairness, the new rules provide no such absolute limits in contravention of the statute).
The incentive this time is a requirement that an applicant wishing to file more than five independent claims or more than 25 total claims (the Office uses the term "5/25") will be required to file an Examination Support Document (ESD; 37 C.F.R. § 1.265). An ESD must contain:
Showing of support under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1.
The preexamination search statement must contain:
A statement that a preexamination search in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.265(b) was conducted.
The field of search by U.S. class and subclass, the date of the search; and
For database searches, the search logic or chemical structure or sequence used as a query, the name of the file(s) searched and the database service, and the date of the search (in the manner set forth in M.P.E.P. § 719.05).
Like current practice in submitting Information Disclosure Statements, the ESD is required to provide U.S. patents and patent application publications; foreign patent documents; and non-patent (e.g., scientific) literature. Unlike current IDS practice, the references must be discussed with particularity, especially with regard to the relevance of each reference to the claimed invention. "The ESD must include a detailed explanation that particularly points out how each of the independent claims is patentable over the references cited in the listing of references," as well as explaining why the claims are novel and non-obvious with regard to the references, as well as evidence of support in the specification in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1.
For purposes of calculating the total number of claims directed towards an invention disclosed in the specification, the Office does not take into account withdrawn claims, or patented claims, but will consider all the claims of any co-pending application containing even one claim that is not patentably distinct from a claim in a different application. And as we previously reported, an applicant is under an affirmative obligation to disclose any related U.S. applications filed within two months of any application being considered prior to examination. The existence of such a related application raises a rebuttable presumption that there are no patentably distinct inventions between two commonly-owned applications under circumstances where the applications share the same filing date or priority date and there is overlap between the two disclosures. If the presumption is not rebutted, the Office will count all of the claims of both applications (patentably distinct or not) in computing that the 5/25 status has been violated and an ESD is required. The 5/25 rule also applies to reissue applications, but not if the patentee does not seek to change the claims either by direct amendment or amendment to the specification that changes the scope of a claim term.
The Office hastens to point our that, when combined with the continuation rules, there is the potential for filing a total of 15 independent and 75 total claims in any original application and two permitted continuations or continuations-in-part; this assumes that each application is granted with substantially all the claims present at filing. The Office will also not "count" any claims withdrawn from consideration, for example, for filing in a divisional application, and provides suggestions for filing a Suggested Restriction Requirement (SRR) prior to the first Office Action (accompanied by an election of claims to be examined complying with the 5/25 rule) to allow the applicant to obtain a restriction requirement prior to any actions on the merits. An applicant cannot file an SRR after a restriction requirement has been issued by the Office, but in either event, the claims must be amended to comply with the 5/25 rule. The Office will not refund excess claim fees paid on the application as filed in which the new provisions require cancellation of excess claims. The Office is also increasing the stringency with which they will review the status of a claim as being "independent" or "dependent"; for example, a claim reciting a method using a composition from another claim, even though explicitly reciting "the composition of claim X" will be counted as an independent claim. Also, multiply dependent claims, and claims dependent on them, will each be counted for each claim recited in the pendency terms of the claim.
If the Office neither accepts the applicants' SRR or issues a restriction requirement on its own, then the applicant will have to either file an ESD or cancel claims to comply with the 5/25 rules. Despite promises made during town hall meetings in the spring of 2006, the Office has not proposed any revisions to the scope of the duty of candor (37 C.F.R. § 1.56) to accommodate the requirements of the examination support document. Since this document requires an applicant to make a series of affirmative representations that are likely to have a direct bearing on whether an examiner is convinced claims are patentable, the resulting potential for a practitioner being accused of inequitable conduct is immense and should act to change applicant behavior in order to avoid the necessity of filing an ESD.
If an ESD is required by the Office, it must be filed prior to the first Office Action, or the applicant will be required to cancel or amend claims to bring the claims into compliance with the 5/25 limitation in order to avoid the need to file an ESD. If the applicant has not complied with either provision, the Office will send a notification having a non-extendable, two-month deadline for applications filed (or that entered the national stage) on or after November 1, 2007, requiring that the applicant amend the claims.
Like the continuation rules, these rules will be effective for any application filed on or after November 1, 2007, or that is a national stage application filed on or before November 1, 2007 (without regard to the International Filing Date). For pending applications, the rules will apply unless there has been a first action on the merits prior to November 1, 2007; this rule was adopted no doubt to prevent applicants from filing additional applications prior to November 1, 2007, as many applicants did when the rules changes relating to adoption of the GATT provisions (the change in U.S. patent term from 17 years from issue to 20 years from earliest filing date) in 1995 or those changes caused by the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) in 2000 (providing for U.S. patent applications to be published, and more importantly, for the prosecution file histories to be publicly available after publication) were implemented.
Patent Docs plans to provide additional information and commentary on the new continuation and claims rules in future articles. We also anticipate posts relating to the consequences of the new rules (and ways to avoid them where possible) given sufficient time to review the rules and contemplate their implications. For additional information on this and other related topics, please see:
Posted at 09:28 AM in Patent Office Rules & Procedures | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
The "Word" on the New Continuation Rules (from the USPTO Webcast) - Part I
The Patent and Trademark Office appears to recognize that the recently-published revised rules of practice regarding continuation applications and restrictions on total claim numbers are producing as much confusion as they are anger and concern among inventors, patent holders, and patent practitioners. (The rules have already provoked a legal challenge filed in the Federal District Court in Virginia, as reported by Patently-O) In an effort to explain the rules (which is likely to be an easier task than justifying them), the Office hosted a webcast today starting at 1 p.m. Eastern time. Patent Docs will present a series of summaries of the webcast (the PowerPoint presentation for the webcast can be obtained here), and of course reference to the slides supersedes these synopses. We will also provide some initial recommendations, surely to be subject to refinement and further development as the rules are implemented starting November 1, 2007.
With regard to the "starting" date for applying the rules, the Office has made one controversial decision already: it will permit applications filed prior to August 21, 2007 (the day the rules were published) to have the benefit of one additional continuation application without requiring a showing that the claims in such a continuation could not have been earlier presented. This move is clearly a way to avoid what many have predicted: a rush to file additional applications prior to the "effective" date of the rule. Once again, the Patent Office appears to have violated the spirit if not the letter of the Administrative Procedures Act by making this retroactive application of the rule prior to its effective date. Anyone who was practicing (or inventing) when the rules changes relating to adoption of the GATT provisions (the change in U.S. patent term from 17 years from issue to 20 years from earliest filing date) in 1995 or those changes caused by the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) in 2000 (providing for U.S. patent applications to be published, and more importantly, for the prosecution file histories to be publicly available after publication) will understand the Patent Office's reasoning, regardless of its legality. Notably, these provisions will also apply to U.S. national phase applications filed after November 1, 2007, and retroactively to any national phase applications filed after August 20, 2007, regardless of the filing date of the International Application from which they derive.
Turning to the most well-publicized of the new rules changes, applicants will be permitted to file two continuation or continuation-in-part applications and one Request for Continued Examination (RCE) for each application "family" (thus limiting RCE practice by requiring a showing, as discussed below, for any "additional" RCE in any related continuation or CIP once a first RCE has been filed in the parent or continuation/CIP application). The effective date of the RCE practice is November 1, 2007; however, for pending applications having filed at least one RCE prior to that date, filing a subsequent RCE will require a petition and showing (i.e., RCEs needed for consideration of newly-discovered art, etc. should be filed prior to November 1, 2007). Continuation/CIP applications can be filed "in series," claiming priority sequentially from an originally-filed application, or "in parallel," with each continuation claiming priority to a pending, originally-filed application.
The Office will refuse to acknowledge any priory claim that is inconsistent with the new rules (i.e., if a "third" continuation application is filed without the required petition and showing), and the application's priority date will be the application's filing date. Since applications in a series of continuing applications frequently depend on a priority claim to avoid anticipation by an earlier-granted patent or U.S. application under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), failure to recognize the priority claim could be fatal to patentability of such a continuation.
The Office has emphasized that additional RCEs, continuation, or continuation-in-part applications will be available if an applicant can make the appropriate showing. The procedure includes:
Unfortunately, "evidence" does not include newly-uncovered prior art to be submitted in an Information Disclosure Statement. Besides a requirement for "reasonable diligence" the Office has provided little guidance on what will be sufficient to make a sufficient showing, and has further compounded this uncertainty by stating that each petition will be decided on a "case-by-case" basis (suggesting that the decisions will be subjective and that whatever standard is developed will be applied inconsistently).
The Office has anticipated that patent applicants would be tempted to increase the likelihood that they would retain (albeit transiently) the potential to pursue all of the claims they are entitled to by statute through the expedient of filing multiple parallel applications containing substantially the same disclosure prior to the November 1, 2007 "effective date." To forestall these efforts, the Office is imposing a requirement (37 C.F.R. § 1.78(f)) that an applicant identify all commonly-owned applications (or patents) having at least one inventor in common and a filing date or priority date within two months of an application's filing date. The Office must be notified of any such "related" applications or patents within four months of the application's filing date or two months of the receiving a filing receipt for the related application. The Office will exercise a rebuttable presumption that any such related applications contain at least one patentably indistinct claim (and are thus subject to mandatory joinder as explained elsewhere) if, in addition to having at least one common inventor and being filed/asserting a priority claim within two months of each other, the applications contain "substantial overlapping disclosure" (defined as disclosure that would support at least one claim in the related application). An applicant can either rebut the presumption (by supplying, for example, the type of reasoning found in a restriction requirement), or submit a terminal disclaimer.
In the "miscellaneous provisions" category, the Office will not "count" an earlier-filed divisional against an applicant if the application was abandoned at the pre-examination stage (the Office used abandonment for failure to comply with a formalities requirement).
Patent Docs plans to provide additional information and commentary on the new continuation and claims rules in future articles. We also anticipate posts relating to the consequences of the new rules (and ways to avoid them where possible) given sufficient time to review the rules and contemplate their implications.
Posted at 03:04 PM in Patent Office Rules & Procedures | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Application of the New Continuation Rules to Divisional Applications
The recently-published revised rules of practice promulgated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office differ in significant ways from the proposed rules published for comment on January 3, 2006. Some of these differences relate to the rules for filing divisional applications; these are a form of "continuing" application filed in response to a Patent Office determination that the claims of an application encompass more than one patentably-distinct invention (pursuant to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 121).
As originally proposed, the rules would have required all divisional applications to be filed during the pendency of the originally-filed application (the claims of which would be subject to the restriction requirement). Additional divisional applications could be filed thereafter, but would not be entitled to the original filing date. Instead, the proposed rules would have limited a priority claim for these "later-filed" divisionals to be the filing date of any pending divisional application. Since a divisional application by definition contains claims that were originally filed in the earliest-filed application, and the specification is also identical, these proposed rules would have forced applicants to file all divisional applications prior to patent grant (or application abandonment) of the originally-filed application. The earlier practice, of filing divisional applications sequentially, although not explicitly prohibited, would be disfavored based on publication of most U.S. patent applications plus the statutory bar provisions (publication) of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
This result would have exercised a great financial burden on universities and small entities by forcing them to incur all divisional filing fees substantially at the same time. It also would have precluded applicants, especially biotechnology applicants, from evaluating the commercial development of their technology and making patenting decisions based on their commercial and investment realities.
Fortunately, the final rules have eliminated the proposed requirement that all divisional applications be filed during the pendency of the originally-filed application (as long as the copendency requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 120 is met). Moreover, each divisional application is entitled to two continuation or continuation-in-part applications (to be discussed in future Patent Docs posts). However, as with other "continuing" applications, divisional applications will be limited to only one request for continuing examination for each divisional "family" (which the rules indicate encompass all divisional applications stemming from an originally-filed application). Although the definition of "family" in this regard seems confusing as written, the PowerPoint presentation materials supplied in connection with the Patent and Trademark Office webcast on the new rules (see "New Continuation and Claims Rules Published") appear to indicate that an RCE filing will be available for each divisional filed (provided, of course, that the divisional resulted from a Patent Office-imposed restriction requirement). Also initially unclear, the new rules permit two continuation applications, but not two continuations-in-part, from each divisional application. These provisions are as of right; additional continuation applications or requests for continuing examination are available for divisional applications, like all other applications, upon petition and a showing of good cause for the additional application/request.
The right to file a divisional application is limited to "claims to a non-elected invention that has not been examined if the application was subject to a requirement for restriction." So-called "voluntary" divisional applications (where the claims have been examined and are not subject to a restriction requirement) are to be treated as a continuation application. The divisional application provisions are also abrogated in instances where the Office rejoins restricted claims (for example, where the applicant elects to pursue composition of matter claims and withdraws method of making or use claims). Rejoinder would vitiate the basis for filing a divisional in such circumstances; this rule suggests that divisional application filings in this instance may best be delayed until the possibility of rejoinder has been exercised or withheld. Any "divisional" applications that have been filed before this determination would thus be "continuation" applications, subject to the other provisions of the final rules. The Office also recommends that prosecution of generic claims be pursued to completion in the originally-filed application and that divisional applications relating to species be forestalled until the patentability status of the generic claims has been determined.
With regard to limitations on the number of claims that will be examined, applicants can prosecute divisional applications "in parallel" (i.e., at the same time) "without the claims in the divisional application being taken into account in determining whether the initial application or its continuation or continuation-in-part applications exceed the five independent claim or twenty-five total claim threshold for invoking the examination support document requirement." These provisions do not apply to instances where claims subject to restriction are subsequently rejoined, suggesting that in these instances claims be crafted with these provisions in mind.
Revised Section 37 C.F.R. § 1.78(a)(2) defines a "divisional application'' as a continuing application that discloses and claims only an invention or inventions that were disclosed and claimed in a prior-filed application, but were subject to a requirement to comply with the requirement of unity of invention under PCT Rule 13 or a requirement for restriction under 35 U.S.C. § 121 in the prior-filed application, and were not elected for examination and were not examined in any prior-filed application.
Patent Docs plans to provide additional commentary regarding the new continuation and claims rules and their impact on biotech/pharma patent prosecution in the coming days and weeks. For additional information on this and other related topics, please see:
Posted at 11:33 PM in Patent Office Rules & Procedures | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Ocean Tomo® Releases Catalogue for Its Fifth IP Auction
In an August 21, 2007 press release, Ocean Tomo Auctions, LLC (the auctions arm of Ocean Tomo LLC) announced the release of its auction catalogue for its fall live IP auction, to be held on October 25, 2007. The catalogue provides information regarding the assets up for auction (over 440) and can be viewed here. The IP assets are grouped into twelve technology categories including Electronics & Handheld Devices, Business Methods / Financial Services, Web Based Services / e-Commerce, User Interface Technology, Digital Media Systems & Management, Software / Messaging / Computer Systems, Display Technology & Digital Imaging, Telecommunications, Green Industrial Systems, Data Storage, Entertainment & Gaming, Location Based Systems & Logistics and Social Networking, from such companies as 3Com Corporation, Sun Microsystems, Inc., Iomega Corporation and Purdue Pharma L.P.
In addition to the auction, Ocean Tomo will host a conference on October 24-25, 2007, ending immediately prior to the Live Auction. The conference workshops will be led by top industry leaders, may qualify for CLE credit, and will focus on cutting-edge topics such as IP Transactions and Protecting & Managing IP in China & the Pacific Rim. In addition, Ocean Tomo will host a Gala Dinner on October 24th at the Field Museum that will feature the IP Hall of Fame 2007 Induction Ceremony and Keynote Speaker Richard Sandor, founder of the Chicago Climate Exchange and the "Father of Financial Futures."
For a limited time, Ocean Tomo is still accepting IP submissions for the Fall 2007 Auction Catalogue Supplement. To submit IP, view the online Fall Auction Catalogue. Those wishing to register to bid or attend the event, can do so here. For more information regarding any of the lots, Ocean Tomo requests that you contact them directly by phone (312.377.4851) or e-mail (auctions@oceantomo.com).
Posted at 11:15 PM in Biotech/Pharma Business | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
USPTO News: New Continuation and Claims Rules Published
Yesterday, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published its long-awaited rules changes for continuation application and claims practice. The 129-page notice, entitled "Changes To Practice for Continued Examination Filings, Patent Applications Containing Patentably Indistinct Claims, and Examination of Claims in Patent Applications; Final Rule," can be obtained here. In addition, the USPTO has created a webpage dedicated to the new continuation and claims rules, where the Office provides documents highlighting the rules changes, listing the differences between the final and proposed rule, and containing a section-by-section summary of the rules changes. In addition, the USPTO webpage contains a PowerPoint presentation and FAQ concerning the rules changes.
Posted at 10:19 AM in Patent Office Rules & Procedures | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Frazer v. Schlegel (Fed. Cir. 2007)
On August 20, 2007, the Federal Circuit reversed an award of priority by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences to Drs. C. Richard Schlegel and A. Bennett Jenson (Schlegel), and instead awarded priority to Drs. Ian Frazer and Jian Zhou (Frazer). The Federal Circuit also remanded the case to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for appropriate further proceedings.
Frazer had appealed the Board's priority determination in an interference involving Frazer's U.S. Application No. 08/185,928 (the '928 application), entitled "Papilloma Virus Vaccine," and Schlegel's U.S. Application No. 08/216,506 (the '506 application), entitled "Papillomavirus Vaccine." The invention contested in the interference relates to human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines comprising HPV-like particles - i.e., particles possessing the outer protein coat (capsid) of HPV but lacking HPV DNA.
On July 19, 1991, Frazer filed an Australian patent application disclosing that a vector "designed to coexpress the L1 and L2 late genes of human papillomavirus [yielded] HPV-like particles," and that such particles "could provide a safe source of material for the development of a vaccine." On July 20, 1992, Frazer filed an International application claiming the benefit of the Australian application, and on January 19, 1994, filed the '928 application claiming the benefit of the International and Australian applications. On June 25, 1992, Schlegel filed the '506 application.
The count established in the interference essentially recites an HPV-like particle made by "constructing a recombinant DNA molecule that contains a sequence encoding a papillomavirus L1 protein; transfecting a host cell with the recombinant DNA molecule; expressing papillomavirus virus-like particles from the transfected host cell." The Board awarded priority to Schlegel, determining that Frazer was not entitled to the benefit of the Australian application because at the time the Australian application was filed "Frazer believed that both the L1 and L2 genes had to be expressed together from the same plasmid," and Frazer's "later work shows that only L1 protein was necessary." As a result, the Board found that Frazer's Australian application "did not provide a described and enabled anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) of the subject matter of the count."
The Federal Circuit determined that the Board erred in denying Frazer the benefit of the Australian application, stating that "[t]he Australian application contained complete details of the method that is the subject of the interference count, and depicts the papillomavirus-like particle of the count with full disclosure of how to produce it." While the CAFC acknowledged that Frazer's Australian application discloses the expression of both the L1 and L2 genes, "his later discovery that either the L1 protein or both the L1 and L2 proteins led to capsid formation does not negate or contradict his disclosure and constructive reduction to practice of the method of the count that produced the papillomavirus-like particle of the count." The Federal Circuit therefore concluded that "the description [in the Australian application] of the procedures used, and the successful production of the virus-like particles there achieved and reported, disclose and enable a species within the count."
Panel: Senior Circuit Judge Friedman and Circuit Judges Newman and Rader
Posted at 11:39 PM in Federal Circuit | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
More on M.P.E.P. § 710.06
Noonan: David Boundy at Cantor Fitzgerald alerted us here at Patent Docs about the provisions of M.P.E.P. § 710.06 (see "Procuring Patent Prosecution from the Present PTO"). Mr. Boundy shares some additional points with Patent Docs readers.
MPEP § 710.06 requires a showing of "error," not just disagreement. MPEP § 710.06 is best thought of as a way to seek correction of purely procedural errors that can be corrected by a new Office Action. I try not to use it to seek correction of substantive errors that are readily appealed. MPEP § 710.06 is applicable where the Office Action is silent, or is required to cite "substantial evidence" but instead relies on pure examiner argument, or uses reasoning other than the reasoning set forth in the MPEP. Examples -
the Office Action is silent on comparison of a claim limitation to any reference - if the Office Action makes a showing but it's wrong, appeal;
you made a request for substantial evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 1.104(d)(2) and the examiner failed to reply at all;
the Office Action omits one or more showings that are required by MPEP or other law, for example, omits at least one of the three showings required by MPEP §§ 2143-2143.03;
the Office Action asserts "inherency" with no showing based on "fact and/or technical reasoning"
the Office Action failed to "Answer All Material Traversed";
the MPEP states a legal test that "must" be applied, and the examiner improvises something else;
the Office Action relies on a definition that lacks any legitimate "reason" that would be consistent with "broadest reasonable interpretation," especially if you provided a dictionary, and the examiner stands on nothing more than personal opinion;
the Office Action gives a "broadest reasonable interpretation" to a reference - remind the examiner that claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation, but references must be read "fairly." Ask for an Action that analyzes the reference under the correct standard;
any "because I said so" argument from an Examiner unsupported by evidence.
The second major use of MPEP § 710.06 is analogous to a contention interrogatory to draw out a position when the examiner is playing "hide the ball." Generally, if an Office Action doesn't contain enough information to help you identify a clear issue for appeal, you should request a replacement. For example, many Office Actions - even final ones - analyze issues at 30,000 feet, so that you can't tell what the source of the disagreement is, let alone determine whether the appropriate reply is a claim amendment, a declaration on a fact, or appeal. Such instances include where the examiner leaves you unable to decipher his position is, unable to discern whether the disagreement is -
claim interpretation?
the content of the reference?
some other fact - typically secondary considerations?
whether the reference is or is not prior art
application of the law to the facts?
Then (analogous to when you can't precisely identify the "clear issue for appeal") send the Action back and force the examiner to articulate a position in sufficient detail that you can identify the precise disagreement and respond. If the Board is going to impose very tight page limits on appeals, the examiner has to give you a clear indication of exactly where you disagree, so you don't have to appeal all possible issues. You're not required to read an examiner's mind; don't let yourself be put in that position.
Your § 710.06 paper must make a clear showing of "error," by referring to the particular examiner requirement that was breached, and showing the particular breach. This is important. (a) It keeps you from wasting your credibility on judgment call issues that should be resolved by appeal. (b) It also gives the examiner a very clear target to meet: you know how frustrating it is to respond to an incomplete paper, and you should not inflict that pain on an examiner.
Finally, note that MPEP § 710.06 may be invoked more than a month after the original paper, but the reset time will be shorter.
Noonan: Thanks, David. We note that although an applicant can invoke the provisions of M.P.E.P § 710.06 more than one month after the mailing date of the Office Action, doing it within the one-month date results in a full 6-month statutory time period for response (avoiding any inadvertent docketing mistakes).
Posted at 10:38 PM in Patent Office Rules & Procedures | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
USPTO News: Patent Office to Hold Webcast on New Claim and Continuation Rules on August 23, 2007
As reported by Patent Docs and others, the USPTO will publish the new rules relating to claims and continuations in the Federal Register on August 21, 2007. On Thursday, August 23, 2007, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern/10:00 a.m. Pacific, the USPTO will hold a special webcast to discuss various aspects of these new rules. The new rules will become effective on November 1, 2007.
Over the course of the two hour presentation, USPTO officials will explain the new rules and answer questions. Those interested in viewing the presentation need to register here, and will need a computer with an Internet connection, sound card, speakers and the ability to view Windows Media presentations.
The Patent Office plans to make an advance copy of the presentation available to registrants prior to the event.
Posted at 10:06 PM in Patent Office Rules & Procedures | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Posted at 12:51 PM in Patent Office Rules & Procedures | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Posted at 07:13 PM in Court Report | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Posted at 06:51 PM in Biotech/Pharma News | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
August 23-24, 2007 - Current Issues in Complex IP Licensing: Business and Legal Factors for Licensing Transactions (Law Seminars International) - Seattle, WA
August 24, 2007 - Managing Patent Prosecution and Litigation: New Regulations, Rules and Challenges, along with Practical Tips for Success (Law Seminars International) - San Francisco, CA
September 6-7, 2007 - Emerging Issues in Biotechnology Law (American Law Institute & American Bar Association) - Washington, D.C.
Posted at 06:25 PM in Conferences & CLE's | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Invitrogen and IDEXX to Collaborate
Invitrogen Corp. has announced that it will partner with IDEXX Laboratories, Inc. to distribute and develop new water testing products. Under the collaboration, IDEXX will distribute and market water testing kits that incorporate Invitrogen's technologies for detecting various microorganisms. The agreement enables Invitrogen, which recently started selling a Cryptosporidium Genotyping Kit, to continue expanding into the water testing market. IDEXX has been in the water testing field since 1993, when it launched a water test for coliform and E. coli.
Posted at 11:31 PM in Licensing | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
ACI Pharma and Biotech Collaborative Agreements Conference
American Conference Institute (ACI) will be holding a conference on Pharma and Biotech Collaborative Agreements on November 13-14, 2007 in New York, NY. The conference will provide information about safeguarding intellectual property rights, minimizing risks through effective due diligence, developing effective governance processes, drafting termination provisions, anticipating the impact of generics, and avoiding pitfalls associated with international deals with respect to the structuring, negotiation, and management of pharma and biotech collaborative agreements. In particular, ACI's faculty will offer presentations on the following topics:
Moving ahead: Identifying current deal drivers and trends affecting collaborations.
Analyzing how recent Supreme Court decisions change the playing field for companies engaged in licensing deals.
Choosing the right partner and deal structure to maximize value and the future success of the deal.
Selecting the most viable and profitable compensation structure.
Minimizing risks through effective due diligence.
Leveraging and safeguarding IP rights during negotiations.
Alliance management: Establishing governance structures, diligence assurances and litigation management for a successful collaboration.
Successfully negotiating collaborative research agreements with academic institutions.
Addressing the critical importance of termination provisions.
Incorporating change in control provisions into the agreement in light of the recent surge of M&A activity.
Making an early assessment of the impact of generics and regulatory matters on the collaboration.
Coordinating U.S. and international business strategies.
An additional master class entitled: "The "Win-Win" Collaborative Agreement: Ethical and Practical Negotiating and Drafting Strategies" will be offered on November 15, 2007. The master class will provide practical and detailed instructions on how to negotiate and draft effective and ethical collaborative agreements.
The agenda for the Pharma and Biotech Collaborative Agreements conference can be found here. A complete brochure for this conference, including an agenda, list of speakers, and registration form can be downloaded here.
The registration fee ranges from $1,995 (conference alone) to $2,595 (conference and master class). Those registering on or before September 15, 2007 will receive a $200 discount off the registration fee. Those interested in registering for the conference can do so here, by calling 1-888-224-2480, or by faxing a registration form to 1-877-927-1563.
Patent Docs is a media sponsor of ACI's Pharma and Biotech Collaborative Agreements conference.