Patents have a term of 20 years from the filing date. After this term, the technology enters the public domain for all to use. This balances incentivizing innovation during the patent term with allowing further innovation and broader access after the term expires. Often, clients ask how they can extend or otherwise expand upon the […]
Determining the Difference Between Ornamentality and Functionality The fundamental difference between design patents and utility patents is that design patents protect how an article looks; whereas, utility patents protect the way an article is used and works. In other words, design patents protect the purely ornamental characteristics of an article. Simple enough, right? Wrong. Sometimes […]
Establishing Patent Infringement Venue Today and in the “New Normal” In 2017, The United States Supreme Court decided that a 1957 opinion is still valid and still limits venue choices for patent infringement actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1400. See TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. ___ (2017) (citing Fourco […]
A Brief Summary of the Patent Process Whenever we meet with a new client who has not gone through the patent process before (and even when they have), we make sure to give them a brief summary of what they can expect. The patenting process involves multiple steps. Depending on the invention, the prior art […]
The Importance of Stepping Into the Shoes of the Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) All too often patent examiners and patent practitioners give lip service to the importance of the “person of ordinary skill in the art” (“POSITA”) when discussing issues such as obviousness rejections, the meaning of claim terms in litigation, […]
One particularly frustrating rejection that patent applicants can be faced with is a rejection alleging obviousness based on “design choice.” These rejections arise when one or more elements of an invention are not disclosed in the prior art, but the examiner nonetheless alleges that there are only “minor” differences between the claims and the prior […]
In many cases, when patent examiners cannot establish a prima facie case of obviousness using existing prior art, they will turn to “intended use” as a catch-all to try to complete their rejections. Intended use-based rejections can be quite subjective, and as such are subject to abuse. However, with proper arguments, these rejections can be […]
U.S. Pat. No. 9,,670,537 B2 to Titan Collaborative Kithe, LLC of Roxbury, VT discloses Lyme infection testing. .
U.S. Pat. No. 9,669,324 B2 to Creative Toys, LLC of Hollis, NH discloses a cost effective, structural building set, suitable as a toy.
U.S. Pat. No. 9,648,882 B2 to Almerick Holdings Ltd. discloses an apparatus for liquid dough goods preparation .
U.S. Pat. No. D786,402S to Worthen Industries, Inc. discloses a Spray Gun Trigger
U.S. Pat. No. 9,518,951 to Changsha Sinocare Inc. Discloses a Disposable Test Sensor with Improved Sampling Entrance
U.S. Pat. No. D765,115 to Shuttersong Incorporated discloses a Computerized Graphical User Interface
U.S. Pat. No. 9,373,271 to Petruzziello discloses a Magnetic Defibrillator Training Pad
U.S. Pat. No. 9,353,974 to Demers discloses a Solar Collecting Device
U.S. Pat. No. 9,295,288 to SherryWear LLC discloses a Pocket Bra System
U.S. Pat. No. 9,038,777 to James F. Stearns Company, LLP discloses a Fall Protection System
U.S. Pat. No. 9,036,560 to Chen discloses a Hybrid Routing and Forwarding Solution for a Wireless Sensor Network
U.S. Pat. No. 9,009,974 to Dune Jewelry, Inc. discloses a Method for Forming Sand Based Jewelry
U.S. Pat. No. 9,009,123 to Shuttersong Incorporated discloses a Method of Combining Image Files and Other Files