From ABAJournal High Court to Hear Bilski Case Restricting Business Methods Patents http://tinyurl.com/ln8a59
From JDSupra: Federal Circuit Adopts Narrowing, Bright-Line Rule for Product-by-Process Patent Claims http://tinyurl.com/lmnwes
Gene Quinn over at IP Watchdog is conducting a survey to get “the people’s choice” for the 25 best Patent Blogs. Go check it out here: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/05/27/vote-for-the-top-patent-blogs/id=3780/ There are quite a few that I didn’t know about… I’ll have to add them to my reader!
Also filed in
|
|
Image via Wikipedia
As you consider the value of patenting your invention, take a look at some of these patent related blogs, they’re great resources:
Patently-O
IP Watchdog
Patent Baristas
Peter Zura’s 271 Patent Blog
Also filed in
|
|
Image via Wikipedia
As in all areas of Law, Patent Law evolves over time and is molded by cases decided in the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit Courts. According to “Patent Law and Practice, Sixth Edition” by Herbert F. Schwartz and Robert J. Goldman, here are the major cases currently impacting patent law:
In re Bilski [...]
Also filed in
|
Tagged Federal Circuit, In re Bilski, Intellectual property, KSR v. Teleflex, Law, Legal Information, Patent, Patent infringement, Patent Services, Services, Supreme Court, United States
|
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Well, I did it… I passed the Patent Bar Exam!!!
Officially known as the Examination for Registration to Practice in Patent Cases Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the Patent Bar Exam is a 100 question, six-hour long behemoth with a 50% pass rate. Having passed it, I am now “pending registration” by the [...]
Image via Wikipedia
Take a look at your employment agreements, covenants not to compete, or non-disclosure agreements. Especially if you work in the tech sector, you can be sure that one, if not all, of these documents (which are typically signed as a condition of employment) include some sort of assignment of ownership of the invention. [...]
The “non-obvious requirement” for determining if something is patentable is found in 35 USC §103 “Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter”. Specifically, in section (a), “if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at [...]
Also filed in
|
|