Comments for IP Spotlight

Comment on Supreme Court re-opens door for patentability of business methods in Bilski v. Kappos, but offers little guidance for patent applicants by Gena777

Gena777 — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 20:11:45 +0000

The Bilski ruling is growing on me. Nevertheless, it's pretty easy to see that the issue of defining the limits of an "abstract idea" will likely be the focus of much patent litigation in the near future. I do rather wish that the Court had made more of an attempt to address this. Lacking guidance from above, lower courts will have to address the issue case-by-case, and we'll likely end up with some kind of piecemeal, undefined, "I know it when I see it" means of determining which inventions are too abstract. I wouldn't be surprised if the issue ends up going back up to the Supreme Court again very soon -- maybe in Prometheus or Classen.

Comment on USPTO expands patent application backlog reduction stimulus plan to all applicants by Jim Singer

Jim Singer — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 11:00:25 +0000

Mr. LoTempio’s comment correctly points out that the program is limited to applications filed before December 9, 2009. That provides a safeguard against gaming the system with new, meaningless applications.

Comment on USPTO expands patent application backlog reduction stimulus plan to all applicants by Gena777

Gena777 — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 06:51:52 +0000

I suppose they didn't have much choice other than to extend this program to large companies, since the patent application backlog has reached critical mass. But won't the big corporations be able to game the system by paying for initial BS applications and then withdrawing them, just to speed approval of their "real" patents? Has the USPTO come up with any safeguards to prevent this kind of thing, or is this one of those things in patent law that we will just have to deal with?

Comment on USPTO expands patent application backlog reduction stimulus plan to all applicants by Vincent LoTempio

Vincent LoTempio — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:40:31 +0000

the problem with the new rule it is that it’s only applicable to patents that were filed before December 9, 2009. And the way it’s written in the USPTO website it really doesn’t explain that very well. So if you have a pending patent application from before December 9, 2009 and want to file a new application and drop the old application, the new application would not be eligible for special status.

Comment on Federal Circuit: Defendant may defeat false patent marking claim by showing no intent to deceive by Gena777

Gena777 — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 01:39:26 +0000

This ruling makes a bit of sense. The overabundance of false marking patent litigation this year has often seemed like bounty hunting, or a new form of trolling in patent law. I'm all for making a profit, but excessive false marking suits are an inefficient and abusive use of the courts.

Comment on USPTO proposes three-track patent examination process by Gena777

Gena777 — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 20:53:54 +0000

This is an indication that Director Kappos understands that different patent applications should be treated differently -- implementing this concept could contribute to increased efficiency at the USPTO. Though I'm not yet convinced that fast/ordinary/delayed is the ideal system for categorizing patent applications, at least it's a step in the right direction. I believe that the USPTO needs to start reviewing several different types of multi-tiered approaches to patent examination, because the traditional one-size-fits-all approach doesn't meet the needs of today's environment. Until we get real patent reform legislation, Kappos & co. will have to take up the slack.

Comment on USPTO expands Green Technology Pilot Program; eliminates the program’s technology classification requirement by pursuenaturalny2008

pursuenaturalny2008 — Tue, 25 May 2010 03:21:32 +0000

Why is this not better advertised?

Comment on US Patent Office Offers Program to Speed Up Examination in PCT-Patent Prosecution Highway Pilot Program by Gena777

Gena777 — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 07:13:54 +0000

This item and the news about the USPTO's recent budget increase cause one to almost dare to hope that the agency's backlog and pendency problems may finally start to become resolved. This could do wonders for the patent law system.

Comment on USPTO Issues Guidance on Patentability of Computer Readable Media by Patent Eligibility of Computer Readable Medium Claims « 717 Madison Place

Patent Eligibility of Computer Readable Medium Claims « 717 Madison Place — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 01:53:54 +0000

[...] All Things Pros blog and IP Spotlight blog have noted that David Kappos issued a memo on January 26, 2010 in regard to the patent [...]

Comment on Federal Circuit Rejects USPTO Method for Compensating for Patent Delay by Gena777

Gena777 — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:37:53 +0000

This is good news. It will contribute to fairness in the patent application process. And, hopefully, it will serve as an incentive to reduce inefficiency in the patent law office.