Patently-O

JANUARY 23, 2024

398 (2007). KSR ‘s language is built on longstanding precedent that an invention cannot be considered obvious if, at the time it was made, it would not have been “perfectly plain” or “immediately recognizable” to one skilled in the art. The Supreme Court has not addressed obviousness standards since its 2007 decision in KSR.

Art 80

Art Invention Patent Prosecution Patent 80

LexBlog IP

NOVEMBER 9, 2023

” Can you imagine the accolades someone would receive if they contributed to an invention that improves bacon? Well, it turns out that not all contributions count when it comes to being an inventor of a patent for a better method of precooking bacon. Many of us have said, “Bacon makes everything better.”

Inventor 52

Inventor Invention Art Patent 52

IP Intelligence

MARCH 7, 2022

vi] Estoppel may arise, for instance, from arguments and representations made to obtain allowance of a patent even without any claim amendments,[vii] and estoppel resulting from arguments and representations regarding one claim or application may limit the scope of related patents. application during litigation in the U.S.?

Patent Law 52

Patent Law Invention Patent Application Art 52

Patently-O

JANUARY 11, 2022

Teleflex (2007). The Supreme Court explained that a collection of known elements cannot be patented unless “the whole in some way exceeds the sum of its parts” — something that is usually not the case in mechanics. The Supreme Court confirmed that the patent laws did not create Federal Jurisdiction for the case.

Patent 130

Patent Invention Patent Infringement Art 130

The IPKat

AUGUST 16, 2021

Merpel does not like this form of taxi Friend of the Kat and Legal Head of Delivery for Gett in Moscow, Konstantin Voropaev has been following some developments out of Kazakhstan relating to an uptick in litigation in the taxi-app space. The subject matter of the patented invention must be new at the time of filing a patent application.

Patent Troll 84

Patent Troll Marketing Marketing Patent 84

SpicyIP

APRIL 7, 2024

Section 8 and the Transparency of Indian Patent System According to Section 8 of the Indian Patents Act , patent applicants must regularly disclose to the patent office any same or substantially similar foreign applications corresponding to their patent applications for Indian inventions, and any updates relevant to their prosecution.

Patent 72

Patent Patent Application Intellectual Property Law 72

Patently-O

MARCH 18, 2024

The district court agreed, finding their contributions were significant to the conception of the claimed invention. Under § 256, correcting inventorship requires comparing the alleged co-inventor’s contributions against the invention as claimed. Here, the acts associated with co-inventorship occurred back in 2007.

Patent 57

Patent Inventor Patent Infringement Designs 57

LexBlog IP

JULY 21, 2021

Further, that same commentator has noted that: In 2007, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted ownership of the word “Jesus” to Jesus Jeans, owned by a publicly traded Italian company, BasicNet, giving the company exclusive rights in America to sell clothing bearing the name “Jesus.” World Intellect.

Intellectual Property 52

Intellectual Property Invention Trademark Copyright 52