THE PLUS IP FIRM
We are board-certified intellectual property attorneys, inventors, and engineers that help small-size inventors, entrepreneurs, and businesses register and protect patents, copyrights, and trademarks so you can profit from them faster.
Call Now: 786.443.7720
Written by: Mark Terry What happens when you only disclose a larger range of values in the specification and later amend the claims to recite a smaller range of values encompassed by the larger range? Do you run into a 112 written description problem? That was the issue in today’s Ex Parte Moraes Barros (BPAI 2010-006399) decision at the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) where a Patent Examiner was reversed. As a Florida Patent Attorney, I stay updated on the latest decisions of the BPAI, so as to provide my clients with the best representation on appeal. In the Moraes Barros case, the
Written by: Mark Terry The photo below is the ceiling of my gym – my local Crossfit box in Miami. At least a couple of times a week, I collapse on the floor of that gym after completing a WOD, heart pounding, and try to catch my breath. I lay there waiting for my pulse to calm down, as I contemplate life, reality and why we are all here. To say I’ve spent days, cumulatively, looking at that ceiling, would be an understatement. I could close my eyes and tell you exactly where each pipe, crack, expansion joint and beam is located on that
Written by: Mark Terry PART ONE The USPTO and Congress have been looking for ways to reduce the damage done by patent trolls and their often-times frivolous lawsuits. One way of doing this has been by restructuring the inter partes reexamination procedure into an inter partes review (IPR) process. This seemingly minor change may have some major implications on the future of patent litigation. The mix of players that fight for the billions at stake in federal patent infringement cases include inventors, manufacturers, patent trolls, patent consulting firms and investment firms. Each can derive a profit from a patent
Written by: Mark Terry Last week’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) decision of Ex Parte Lim , which affirmed a Patent Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness rejection, teaches an important lesson – obviousness rejections must address both references – not just one. As a Miami Patent Attorney that reads BPAI decisions frequently, I’m surprised that any practitioners even try this argument anymore. The case of Ex Parte Lim involved a mobile communications network, such as those used by cell phone providers. The Examiner issued a 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness rejection based on two references – Lipsanen and Siren. The Appellant argued that Lipsanen did
Written by: Mark Terry In light of all of the news about patent reform legislation and the backlash against Non-Practicing Entities (NPE) [you know … patent trolls], did you know that large corporations like Microsoft, Sony, Apple, Intel, and Google invest or have invested in patent funds? Why do they do it? Has it helped fuel infringement lawsuits? We explore these issues here. Intellectual Ventures (IV) has opened funds to investors since 2000 and is currently courting investors to invest in its planned $3 billion fund for investing in patents. Microsoft and Sony have subscribed, but Intel and Apple
Written by: Mark Terry “I just received a copyright takedown notice. What do I do?” As a Board-Certified Specialist in Intellectual Property Law, this is a common question I hear– at least several times a month. Usually, the item in dispute is a document or photo that is being used on a client’s website. And usually, the copyright takedown notice includes a scary letter that threatens to sue for copyright infringement and hundreds of thousands of dollars. It ca instill fear in your typical law-abiding citizen who has never been involved in a lawsuit. Don’t panic – this is what you
Written by: Mark Terry As a Florida Patent Lawyer, I keep up with recent happenings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to stay abreast on the latest in trademark law. Recently, the difficulties encountered at the USPTO by NYC-based Foursquare, which offers a location-based social networking website, has come to light. First off, the trademark application for the company’s main mark – FOURSQUARE – has been rejected because an improper specimen was submitted (see trademark application number 77956808). Apparently the attorney for Foursquare submitted an advertisement for the web site and not an actual web page where the applied-for services are
Written by: Mark Terry Short Answer: where the defendant has minimum contacts 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) makes it very clear that “Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, OR where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” Furthermore, “for purposes of venue under this chapter, a defendant that is a corporation shall be deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). Thus, for practical purposes, under the federal statutes, you can
Written by: Mark Terry The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) recently handed down an influential decision when it reversed an obviousness-type rejection (Ex Parte McManamy, Appeal 2009-008781) entered by a patent examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The 103(a)-obviousness rejection statute indicates that a patent may not be obtained if it would have been obvious to someone practicing ordinary skill in the “art” at the time of the invention. The wording of the statute clearly leaves room for subjective interpretation, and as a Miami-based Patent Attorney I constantly stay abreast of new holdings that can strengthen my clients’ positions in pursuing a
Written by: Mark Terry The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) decision of Ex parte Yufa affirmed a Patent Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st paragraph, rejection. This was an interesting case for me, a Miami Patent Attorney, because it illustrated a type of rejection I don’t deal with much. The case of Ex parte Yufa involved an apparatus for detecting particles using beams of light. At issue was a claim element that did not appear to be present in the original specification. The Board found the disputed claim element did not have support in the initial disclosure and therefore the 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st
THE PLUS IP FIRM
We are board-certified intellectual property attorneys, inventors, and engineers that help small-size inventors, entrepreneurs, and businesses register and protect patents, copyrights, and trademarks so you can profit from them faster.
Call Now: 786.443.7720