On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States released a long-awaited opinion regarding the patentability of business method patents.  The Supreme Court upheld a decision which found a process for hedging commodities was non-patentable subject matter.  In 1997, Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw filed a patent application for a procedure for hedging [...]

Filed under: In the Courts, In the USPTO, Patent, Uncategorized by brandond
No Comments »

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USTPO) is requesting comments and input from the general public about a potential multi-track examination initiative.  The proposed “Three Track” initiative will give applicants better control over their examination process while increasing efficiency in the Patent Office.   The proposed “Three Track” initiative would classify examination tracks in three [...]

Filed under: Events, In the USPTO, Miscellaneous, Patent by brandond
No Comments »

On August 13, 2009, Gary Locke, Secretary of Commerce, swore in David Kappos as the new Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).  Kappos faces many challenges in the USPTO.  To read about the challenges that face the new director, please read the two earlier blog posts. Possible Changes to Come in [...]

Filed under: Events, In the USPTO, Miscellaneous by brandond
No Comments »

After the announcement that David Kappos was nominated for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), there has been much speculation about possible reform programs that Kappos may enact.  The USTPO faces a few major problems due to the increase in applications and complexity of technology.  The USPTO is backlogged with [...]

Filed under: Dead Patents, In Congress, In the USPTO, International Patent, Miscellaneous, Patent, Trademark by brandond
No Comments »

On July 6, 2009, the U.S. Patent and Trademark office will establish a Patent Prosecution Highway (“PPH”) pilot program with the National Board of Patents and Registration of Finland. A PPH agreement between two countries’ patent offices allows an applicant to request accelerated processing of their patent application at one Patent Office when the second [...]

Filed under: In the USPTO, International Patent, Patent by davidi
Comments Off

The United States Patent Office has begun testing a new website. The USPTO’s press release states that the “new site has been redesigned to improve the look and feel, as well as to enhance the user experience with improved navigation.” Ultimately, the goal is to make the USPTO’s website “technologically up-to-date, user friendly, and responsive [...]

Filed under: In the USPTO, Patent, Trademark by davidi
Comments Off

On June 1, 2009 the Supreme Court granted certiorari to Bernard L. Bilski and Rand A. Warsaw regarding the patenting of business methods discussed in the November 2008 article “In re Bilski: CAFC Clarifies “Transformation of Matter” Test for Business Method Patents.”  (http://blog.patents-tms.com/?p=253)  Bilski and Warsaw appealed the rejection of their business method application to [...]

Filed under: In the Courts, In the USPTO, Patent by brandond
Comments Off

Nadya Suleman cannot stay out of the headlines.  Her story was so publicized that she was nicknamed “Octomom” by the media.  Nadya was already the mother of six when she gave birth to octuplets in January and became an overnight celebrity.  Her story is controversial because of her in-vitro fertilization. Nadya is now seeking to [...]

Filed under: Events, In the USPTO, Miscellaneous, Trademark by brandond
Comments Off

In In re Bilski, No. 07-1130, Fed. Cir., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), affirmed a decision by the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (USPTO Board) rejecting claims in a U.S. patent application as unpatentable in view of 35 U.S.C. 101 as not being directed [...]

Filed under: In the Courts, In the USPTO, Patent by sscherrer
Comments Off

A mistake of a clerical or typographical nature in an issued patent may be corrected by a Certificate of Correction (COC). Correction of the mistake may not contain new matter nor require reexamination. 35 U.S.C. 255. Furthermore, the mistake must have been committed in good faith. Id. If the mistake is that of the Patent [...]

Filed under: In the USPTO, Patent by admin
Comments Off