By Afshein “Ash” Ghezelbash The revolution in manufacturing is here. Undoubtedly, 3D printing is fast, cheap, and will revolutionize the way we manufacture objects. In essence, 3D printing is a process in which raw material is layered into three-dimensional shapes. Common applications include toys, footwear, jewelry, kitchenware, architecture, engineering and construction, automotive, aerospace, dental and medical devices. Even human organs today are being constructed from scratch using 3D printers. But this is just the beginning of how 3D printing can change the way we conduct business. The technology is available, but companies and organizations around the world have yet to discover the full potential of 3D printing. With that said, the question for future users of 3D printing remains the same: who can regulate what should and should not be printed?
By Afshein “Ash” Ghezelbash Over the past few years, China’s patent and copyright frameworks are starting to change. Historically, China does not have a strong reputation among other innovative nations with regard to intellectual property (IP) rights. But recently, China’s approach towards IP rights is seeing a transformation. China is projected to rank among the top three countries in the world in terms of annual patents for inventions. Most notably, China has almost doubled the amount of patent applications overseas, many of which are to be examined by the United States Patent and Trademark Offices (USPTO). The Chinese government has made substantial changes in enforcing patent laws in the last decade. Because of these improvements, and because businesses are always seeking out to get the best protection for their intellectual property, U.S. companies are now seeking protection on their patents in China through China’s State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO).
By Evan Jensen Generic top-level domains (gTLDs) are a new and soon-to-be-huge feature of the internet. New websites using a wide variety of newly created domain names will soon be springing up like weeds. Owners of brands and trademarks need to be aware of the threats, and of their options and the tools that are available to protect their intellectual property on the web. This huge expansion of internet real estate also brings a new wave of speculators and cybersquatters. New gTLDs open up a world of possibilities for speculators and cybersquatters to claim popular words and marks for their own profit. Trademark holders need to be proactive in order to protect their marks from being exploited by vultures on the web by taking advantage of ICANN’s new trademark protections, including legal rights objections to gTLD’s and the newly-created Trademark Clearinghouse.
The creation of new top-level domains is the largest expansion of the internet ever, opening up a new world of opportunity to stake a claim to newly available names that will be immensely valuable in the future.
By Charles Pierce On September 10, The Patent and Trademark Office published finals rules designed to ensure that a person applying for a patent is the true inventor through a new trial proceeding, the derivation proceeding. An applicant who is not first to file (the petitioner) will be able to petition for a derivation proceeding and attempt to show that another applicant’s (the respondent) claimed invention was derived from the petitioner’s invention. Derivation proceedings will take place before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The petition must show by substantial evidence that the petitioner’s application has at least one claim which is the same or substantially similar to the respondent’s claimed invention and demonstrate that the respondent’s claimed invention was derived from the petitioner’s invention. The petitioner must also show, for each of his claims, why the respondent’s claimed invention is substantially similar, and identify how the claim should be construed. Such a petition must be filed within one year of
By Dennis Clarke and James McEwen On September 16, 2011, the “Leahy-Smith America Invents Act” (AIA) was signed into law. The AIA makes the most substantial changes in U.S. patent law in decades and sets various dates on which these changes are to take effect. The most profound of those changes is the switch to a first-inventor-to-file system, in place of the current first-to-invent practice in the U.S. This change takes effect only for applications originally filed on or after March 16, 2013. However, on September 16. 2012, other major changes will take effect, including the possibility of requesting inter partes review and other post-grant trial procedures before the newly renamed “Patent Trial and Appeal BoarcL” This paper will predominantly relate to the new requirements relating to declarations and assignments and other miscellaneous provisions that have an effective date of September 16, 2012. The new trial proceedings are discussed briefly hereinbelow.
By Chris Reaves A recent appeal of a lengthy prosecution ended last week, when the Federal Circuit in In re Hyon, 102 USPQ2d 1889 (Fed. Cir. 2012) upheld the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) findings that a person of ordinary skill would have reason to combine two references to create the invention at issue. The Board’s decision, though possibly “flawed,” could not be found unreasonable under the applicable standard of review, emphasizing the challenge that patent prosecutors face in overcoming a factual finding. Background The applicants, Suong-Hyu Hyon and Masanori Oka, were granted U.S. Patent No. 6,168,626 on a specific type of “Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene” (abbreviated throughout the patent and the opinion as “UHMWPE”), and on the method for creating these material. The inventors intended the material to be used for artificial joints although the claims were not limited to this embodiment. The patent had only eleven claims, with limitations such as thickness of the UHMWPE
James Jang In Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. v. Sandoz, Inc., 678 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court that the patent was not obvious based on prior art evidence, nor the asserted claims were invalid for nonstatutory double patenting. The Defendants are drug manufacturers who submitted ADNA filings to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for an approval to manufacture, use, or sale of generic aripiprazole products. Otsuka Pharmaceutical Corporation brought action against the drug manufacturers for infringement of patent on the compound claimed in Patent No. 5,006,528, aripiprazole, an atypical antipsychotic compound approved by the FDA for the treatment of schizophrenia. The Defendants counterclaimed that the patent was invalid for obviousness and nonstatutory double patenting. The Federal Circuit analyzed three ‘lead compounds’ asserted by the Defendants, unsubstituted butoxy compound, 2,3-dichloro propoxy compound, and OPC-4392 compound. A ‘lead compound’ means “a compound in the prior art that would be most promising to modify
Meera El-Farhan What started a year ago, with Apple filing suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Samsung Electronics Co., has now expanded to more than 50 patent war lawsuits across four continents and at least eight countries. Throughout this escalating legal global battle, with billions of dollars at stake, the smartphone and tablet powerhouses continue, however, to be dependent business partners, and Samsung remains Apple’s largest semiconductor component supplier for iOS devices (a deal worth $8 billion).  In its initial 38-page complaint, Apple claimed unfair competition, trademark infringements, and patent infringements; whereby, Apple alleged Samsung’s smartphones and Galaxy Tab 10.1 “slavishly” copied the iPhone and iPad designs. Samsung responded to Apple’s design patent and trade dress infringement claims by filing cross-claims. Samsung sought revocation of the patent claims and further alleged that the iPhone and iPad infringed on Samsung’s technology patents (including wireless data communication technology). Additionally, Samsung filed suit in
Charles Pierce and James G. McEwen On July 25, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced proposed rules as a result of changes in the America Invents Act (AIA) converting the U.S. patent system from a first to invent to a first to file system. These changes will take place on March 16, 2013. The proposed rules are intended to promote consistency caused by the changes in the AIA for pending applications, and to implement the AIA for future applications. Comments on the proposed rules are open until October 5, 2012. Below is a summary of significant elements of the proposed rules. The proposed rules will treat commonly owned or joint research agreement patents and patent application publications as having the same inventive entity for the purposes of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as required under 35 U.S.C. § 102(c) of the AIA. 35 U.S.C. §102(c) of the AIA essentially broadens the current 35 U.S.C. §§