The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed an obviousness decision by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, explaining that nothing requires a petitioner to identify a prior.
U.S. patent practitioners have had a rocky relationship with the once-straightforward patent eligibility requirement under 35 U.S.C. 101 in recent years. When dealing with difficult 101 rejections under this new status quo, it can sometimes help to think outside of the box about how to overcome a given rejection.
On July 17, inventor advocacy organization US Inventor and conservative interest group Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund filed a joint amicus brief at the U.S. Supreme Court urging the nation’s highest court to grant the petition for writ of certiorari filed in Killian v. Vidal.
Impact of Flawed Disclosure on Determining Obviousness: A Cross-Jurisdictional Study between Taiwan, China, US and Europe lexology.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from lexology.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
By Craig R. Smith and Kevin M. Eckert BridgeTower Media Newswires “Silence is of different kinds, and breathes different meanings.” “Villette” by Charlotte Brontë Silence is not disclosure, except when it is. This year, the Federal Circuit decided multiple patent cases addressing negative claim limitations and the meaning of silence. The decisions provide .