VPATAPP Alert_Patent enforcement through the courts in Canada

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e5733846-589b-424c-b102-853695bc9a96

By Belmore Neidrauer LLP

VPATAPP Alert_Patent Searches: A Great Opportunity for Inventors to Focus on What is Unique

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/08/26/patent-searches-inventors-focus-unique/id=87102/

Patent Searches: A Great Opportunity for Inventors to Focus on What is Unique
By Gene Quinn, Editor and Founder of IPWatchDog.com

For most inventors a patent search should be the first step in the patent application process. The reason is simple. A patent search is used to determine whether the time and expense of moving forward with a patent application is a worthwhile endeavor. The patent process can be expensive, so the last thing you want to do is spend a lot of time and money preparing and filing an application when there is easy to find prior art that will likely prevent a patent from issuing. Likewise, high quality patent searches can give you a good idea about the likely scope of any patent claim that you may be able to anticipate. If it looks like you will only get an extremely narrow claim it might not be in your best interest to invest in the patent application. You can then move on to your next invention, and inventors always have a next invention.

VPATAPP Alert_Webinar: Prior Art: Understanding and Attacking Prior Art Rejections -6th September 2017

http://www.finnegan.com/priorartunderstandingandattackingpriorartrejections09062017/

Join the experts for a compare and contrast discussion on what constitutes prior art in the United States and in Europe, and how to respond to rejections over that art. Relying on over sixty years combined prosecution experience before the USPTO and EPO, the speakers will offer attendees concrete strategies for addressing novelty and inventive step/obviousness rejections. 

• What qualifies as prior art (pre- and post-AIA) and why prior art in the United States may not be prior art in Europe, with a specific focus on AIA changes to sales and offers for sales, “secret” prior art, and the ability to swear behind certain types of prior art
• Attacking inherency rejections, in the context of novelty and, yes, even obviousness
• Strategies for overcoming inventive step/obviousness rejections, including rejections using “common general knowledge” and multiple references
• Strategies for effective use of objective evidence of non-obviousness

Dated 6th September 2017: Register at

https://event.on24.com/eventRegistration/EventLobbyServlet?target=reg20.jsp&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.finnegan.com%2Fpriorartunderstandingandattackingpriorartrejections09062017%2F&eventid=1420695&sessionid=1&key=4868EA3C69378F4B7D1BF625C0F68DEF&regTag=&sourcepage=register

VPATAPP Alert_Litigation Misconduct Helps Render a Patent Unenforceable

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/litigation-misconduct-helps-render-a-34191/

A finding of inequitable conduct renders an entire patent unenforceable, and requires a showing that (i) a reference withheld from the USPTO is “but-for” material to prosecution and (ii) that the Patentee acted with specific intent to deceive the USPTO. 

VPATAPP Alert_EPO publishes Unitary Patent Guide

European patent office recently published a guide to Unitary patent. This includes obtaining, maintaining and managing Unitary patents.

http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/C3ED1E790D5E75E0C125818000325A9B/$File/Unitary_Patent_guide_en.pdf

VPATAPP Alert_Proposed draft patent rules in Canada

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/wr04281.html

The public consultations are on till 8th September 2017

VPATAPP Alert_Right to a Jury Trial in Patent Validity / Revocation

https://patentlyo.com/patent/2017/08/patent-validity-revocation.html

Oil States Energy Services, LLC, v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC., now pending before the Supreme Court raises one important question:

Issue: Whether inter partes review … violates the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury.

VPATAPP Alert_How Technology is Shaping the Future of IP Law Firms

http://www.insidecounsel.com/2017/08/17/how-technology-is-shaping-the-future-of-ip-law-fir

Ian Johnson, Head of IP legal at CPA Global sat down with inside Counsel to discuss how technological innovations are shaping the IP Law firm industry, and how law firms can position themselves to best take advantage of the opportunities presented.

VPATAPP Alert_Federal Circuit Says PTO Submissions can Waive Privilege to Future Communications

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/federal-circuit-says-pto-submissions-23650/

On July 20, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in In re OptumInsight denied OptumInsight’s petition for writ of mandamus on privilege waiver. The court held that the District Court for the Northern District of California did not clearly abuse its discretion in evaluating the proper scope of waiver.

VPATAPP Alert_Considerations for Developing a Global Patent Term Extension Strategy

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/considerations-developing-global-patent-term-extension-strategy

In summary, patent term extension is available in a wide array of jurisdictions. While the concepts are similar, the particulars of PTE regulations are sufficiently varied across jurisdictions so that a country specific PTE strategy is needed to maximize the economic value of a patent family directed to a regulated composition.

VPATAPP Alert_Cost of Patent Infringement Litigation Falling Sharply in USA

https://bol.bna.com/cost-of-patent-infringement-litigation-falling-sharply/

A Bloomberg story:

Patent litigation costs declined drastically from 2015 to 2017, as litigants controlled expenses and increasingly skipped courtrooms to challenge a patent’s validity at the Patent and Trademark Office, IP attorneys told Bloomberg BNA.

VPATAPP Alert_‘Patent Prosecutor’ or ‘IP Counselor’?: Clients and Practitioners Should Choose Wisely

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/08/06/patent-prosecutor-ip-counselor-choose-wisely/id=86443/

By Carlo Cotrone 

Carlo Cotrone is Senior Intellectual Property Counsel at Baker Hughes, a GE company, in Houston. As lead IP counsel for the Subsea Production Systems, Subsea Drilling Systems, Surface Pressure Control, Downhole Technology, and Production Solutions business units, he develops and manages the execution of offensive and defensive IP strategies; provides IP and general corporate advice; and negotiates strategic agreements with customers, suppliers, and licensees. Previously, Carlo practiced law at several firms on the East Coast and in the Midwest, most recently as a partner.

VPATAPP Alert_The Costs of Patenting in Africa: A Tale of Three Intellectual Property Systems

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/08/04/costs-patenting-in-africa/id=86500/

The article discusses

• African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (“ARIPO”)
• Organisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle (“OAPI”)
• National Patent Systems and South Africa

VPATAPP Alert_Will the Supreme Court in USA react to a Business Method Patent Held Valid?

https://patentlyo.com/patent/2017/08/supreme-business-method.html

Update from USA

VPATAPP Alert_Germany – A Major Hub for Patent Litigation

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/germany-a-major-hub-for-patent-99342/

With the Unified Patent Court now stalled for at least the near future, U.S. life sciences companies will continue to face the question of where to bring patent infringement cases in Europe. The German courts offer a variety of potential advantages for such companies.

Two-thirds of all patent infringement cases in Europe are brought to Germany, and there are many reasons for this – including that Germany has courts with specialized judges who exclusively practice patent law.  For patent-holders, another key reason is that, under German law, injunctions are granted as of right:  If the court finds in favor of the patentee, it will issue an injunction. There are of course significant other benefits to litigating patent disputes in Germany — including the fact that, as a rule of thumb, first-instance proceedings only take between eight and 24 months.