This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Kaijet highlights the narrowness of the pre-filing grace period (safe harbor) provision under the America Invents Act (AIA) and serves as a reminder that there are a number of patents that would have been valid under the pre-AIA patent system may no longer be valid under the current law. HyperDrive apparently embodies the claimed invention.
Minerva’s ‘208 patent claims a device for endometrial ablation and includes a 2011 priority filing date. The application was filed in 2011, but back in 2009 Minerva had been doing testing on a prototype “Aurora device” that included inner/outer frames made of two different types of steel. 3d 1243 (Fed.
patent law over the past several decades, the America Invents Act of 2011 was clearly the most dramatic rewriting of the law since 1952. The fundamental change to Section 102 was the transition from first-to-invent to first-to-file. Although Congress has repeatedly tinkered with U.S. 35 U.S.C.
a) the invention was … patented or described in a printed publication … before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or. (b) b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication … more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or.
As is usual these days, ELCO turned-around and filed an inter partes review petition — challenging the patent’s validity based upon a 2011 product catalog (printed publication) that had featured the Hatteras lighting product. ” 35 U.S.C. ” Here, the district court found substantive, germane differences.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content