VPATAPP Alert_Supreme Court Removes Patent Litigation from the Heartland of Texas

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=557e9de3-aeb7-4913-b30d-b5cd29941e74

For years, patent assertion entities have filed patent lawsuits against retailers in federal court in Texas. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC may give retailers the ability to insist they defend such lawsuits on their home turf.

VPATAPP Alert_Detailed information related to Patents in Singapore

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d73630b7-9a6b-484c-a3a2-62b057f93890

By Taylor Vinters Via LLC

VPATAPP Alert_Industry report - Cloud computing patent litigation on the rise

http://www.iam-media.com/industryreports/Detail.aspx?g=1938a1a9-137f-4ba4-b52f-41c3fce386bb

A recent study confirms that the number of cloud computing patent transactions quadrupled between 2012 and 2016 (for further information please see “Patent transaction trends in cloud computing: are PAEs buying into the market?”). In particular, PAEs increasingly acquire cloud patents to monetise cloud patent portfolios following enforcement strategies.

VPATAPP Alerts_Enforcing Your Patent Without Litigation

https://www.cannabisindustryjournal.com/feature_article/enforcing-your-patent-without-litigation/

Avoiding litigation using a handful of tools can save you millions and even your business.

By William H. Honaker, Dickson Wright

VPATAPP Alert_The key dates of the UPC’s timetable: from the entry into force of the UPC Agreement to transitional period

http://upcblog.amar.law/understanding-upc-timetable/#more

Written by Louise AMAR

The entry into force of the UPC package follows a complex timetable. The UPC goes in fact through 3 phases and periods before its start of operations.

1.     When will UPC Agreement enter into force?

2.     What are the Provisional Application Phase and the Sunrise Period?

3.     What is the transitional period?

VPATAPP Alert_Patents, trade and foreign direct investment in the European Union

http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/AD3C8DB869617089C12581D70055FF25/$File/patents_trade_fdi_en.pdf

An EPO Report published on 15^th November 2017

VPATAPP Alert_Patent enforcement through the courts in Thailand

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ed3f7c94-af5c-47db-a52d-958a8b1bc514

By Ananda Intellectual Property

VPATAPP_Pending Supreme Court PTAB Cases in USA

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c47636af-12d5-4d5d-9288-4cfa7b17cc6c

By Ropes & Gray LLP

Scott McKeown, Ropes & Gray IP litigation partner and chair of the firm’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) group, discusses potential impacts of pending Supreme Court PTAB cases, Oil States and SAS Institute. 

VPATAPP Alert_Webinar on Overcoming §103 Rejections for Biotech and Chemical Patents: Recent Decisions and USPTO Guidance

https://www.straffordpub.com/products/overcoming-103-rejections-for-biotech-and-chemical-patents-recent-decisions-and-uspto-guidance-2017-11-16

A live 90-minute CLE webinar with interactive Q&A.

Description

Obviousness can be a major hurdle for patent applicants in securing a patent on inventions. An obviousness determination can be complex, and examiners regularly reject patent claims as obvious under §103 in view of a combination of prior art.

For clients who receive a §103 rejection, counsel’s response should be part of a well thought out strategy that anticipates the possibility of later court and PTO challenges. For example, counsel should craft the response to minimize or eliminate prosecution history estoppel.

Further, in light of the demands of AIA post-grant proceedings, such as post-grant reviews and inter partes reviews, counsel should carefully consider submitting evidence, including comparative data, scientific arguments, and supporting declarations, in the reply to the rejection.

Listen as our authoritative panel of patent attorneys examines how the courts have treated §103 rejections and the USPTO’s guidance on §103 rejections. Based on decades of experience, the panel will offer their own war stories on overcoming §103 rejections. The panel will also discuss the distinct challenges for biotech and chemical inventions and best practices for patent counsel to address §103 rejections in biotech and chemical patent applications.

VPATAPP Alert_The interplay of patent prosecution and litigation in Germany

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=2ffc6d29-1f5a-4b9c-855c-91e01c6e4c8e

Foreign colleagues in international litigation often ask us whether there is any kind of prosecution history estoppel in Germany. The answer can best be summarised as “generally no; however…” This chapter sheds some light on the extent of the “however” and from this draws advice for both prosecution and litigation practitioners.

By Zimmermann & Partner Patentanwälte mbB

VPATAPP Alert_How to opt-out a patent / withdraw an opt-out / correct an opt-out?

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8eab4554-a823-4fa8-a582-e4d5d0cad5b5

According to the Rule of Procedure 5 of the Unified Patent Court: the patent proprietor or a person mandated by her are the only persons allowed to opt-out, withdraw and correct an opt-out. In case of multiple patent proprietors, the opt-out must be lodged by or on behalf of all proprietors.

By Amar Goussu Staub