RSS

Category Archives: patent law

Expanding universe of “prior art”: Patent applications will be more vulnerable to attack if filed after March 16, 2013

21 Jan

HR1249U.S. patent law is scheduled to soon experience major changes under the America Invents Act (AIA) that will make it harder to get a patent granted and that will make it easier to challenge an issued patent.  Therefore, if contemplating filing a patent application in the near future, it’s wise for applicants to do so before March 16, 2013, the day these changes take effect.

One major change is that the “prior art” universe is expanding on March 16, 2013.  “Prior art” is the term used for references or activities that can be cited against the patentability of a patent application or the validity of an issued patent.  Under current law, for a sale, offer for sale, or public use of a product to qualify as “prior art,” this activity had to (i) occur in the U.S. and (ii) be earlier than one year before the patent application’s filing date.  Under the new law, being on sale or in public use anywhere in the world can be cited.

In addition, under current law, for a foreign patent application to qualify as “prior art” against your U.S. patent application, it has to satisfy at least one of the following conditions:

  1. published before your conception date,
  2. published more than one year before your filing date, or
  3. filed before your conception date as an international patent application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (“a PCT application”), that was published in English, designated the U.S., and resulted in a granted patent.

Under the new law, conditions (1) and (3) of the current law disappear since the conception date no longer matters (as discussed below).  Condition (2) of the current law excludes all foreign patent applications that published less than one year before your filing date, but under the new law, condition (2) is modified to only exclude foreign patent applications by the inventors (or obtained from the inventors) that are published less than one year before your filing date. 

A second major change in U.S. patent law, receiving the bulk of the buzz regarding the new law, is that the U.S. is changing from a “first to invent” standard to a “first to file” standard.  It’s always been beneficial to file patent applications as soon as possible, but under the old “first to invent” standard, even if you filed your patent application after someone else did for the same invention, you could be awarded the patent instead of them by proving that you were the “first to invent,” i.e., you invented the claimed invention before they did.  However, under the new “first to file” standard, the first party filing their patent application is awarded the patent, regardless of who was the “first to invent.”  

(Rigorously speaking, the new law is actually a ”first inventor to file” standard, since it prevents someone from obtaining the invention from the inventors, and then racing to the patent office to file an application first for something this someone didn’t actually invent.)

It’s rare that two entities separately conceive and file patent applications for the same invention.  But this change to a “first to file” standard makes an important contribution that further expands the “prior art” universe.  Under the current “first to invent” standard, the date that you conceived of the claimed invention could be used to exclude a certain category of references that were available to the public before your filing date from being considered “prior art” against your patent application.  But under the “first to file” standard, applicants can no longer rely on their earlier date of conceiving the claimed invention to overcome any cited references.  In other words, conception date will no longer matter; only the application’s filing date will control.

Besides expanding the “prior art” universe, the new law also introduces a new “post-grant review” (PGR) mechanism for challenging the validity of U.S. patents within nine months of issuance before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  This mechanism became available to challenge so-called “business method” patents in September 2012, but on March 16, 2013, it will be available to challenge all U.S. patents with filing dates after this date.  In conjunction with the other mechanisms for challenging issued patents (e.g., ex parte reexamination and inter partes review), each with its own requirements and pros and cons, PGR opens up a new way for competitors to invalidate your patent.

Finally, the new law includes language that has not yet been interpreted by the federal courts, so the full effects of the new law are uncertain at present. 

For one example, with regard to the activities anywhere in the world being “prior art,” as discussed above, the new law states that the application can be rejected if the claimed invention is ”in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public” before the application’s filing date.  So does “otherwise available to the public” mean that a private sale of the invention would not qualify as “prior art” under the new law?  Under existing law, any sale or offer for sale in the U.S.would qualify as “prior art,” public or private.  Until the courts weigh in, it’s probably prudent to make the conservative assumption that any sales or offers for sale, public or private, would qualify as “prior art” and to strive to not enter into such activity unless a patent application is already on file.

For another example, the new law excludes “disclosures” made by the inventors (or obtained from the inventors) within one year before the application’s filing date from being considered as “prior art” against the application.  But are being ”on sale” or “in public use” considered to be ”disclosures” under the new law?  Under existing law, sales, offers for sale, and public uses are excluded from being “prior art” if within one year before the application’s filing date.  Here, until the courts weigh in, the conservative assumption to make is that this one-year grace period does not apply to these activities.  In other words, don’t do anything that might be considered to be a disclosure of the invention until you first have a patent application filed.

In summary, under the new regime of the AIA, patent applications filed after March 16, 2013 will have to overcome a larger universe of “prior art” references to be granted as a U.S. patent, there will be more options for competitors to challenge the validity of such patents, and there will be uncertainty in how the law applies to various situations.  Therefore, potential applicants should consider filing their patent applications before March 16, 2013, to avoid this new regime.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 21, 2013 in aia, america invents act, patent law

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Your patent is invalid if you’re not the first inventor: The Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc.

01 Dec

The Federal Circuit recently handed down a decision affirming a lower district court ruling that found the claims of U.S. Pat. No. 6,562,130 asserted against Cree, Inc. by The Fox Group, Inc. to be invalid, since Cree had produced the claimed single-crystal silicon carbide (SiC) material before the priority date of the ’130 patent.

This result was based on the “first to invent” requirement under current U.S. patent law, which is scheduled to change to a “first inventor to file” requirement on March 16, 2013 as part of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA).  But as described at the end of this post, under the facts of this case, the result would be the same even if the upcoming “first inventor to file” requirement were used instead.

SiC is a man-made material that has been around for more than a century in a multicrystalline and high defect density form, primarily used as an abrasive.  But in single-crystal form with low intrinsic defect densities (e.g., dislocations, micropipes, and inclusions of a secondary phase within the crystal), SiC is a semiconductor that can be used in LED light sources and electronics designed to withstand high power levels and high temperatures.  In addition, single-crystal SiC can be used as a substrate material for epitaxial growth of bulk Group III nitrides (e.g., gallium nitride) for high speed electronics.

  

Cree markets a wide variety of LED-based lighting components, power MOSFETs, and electronic devices for RF communications, all  based on single-crystal SiC.  For fiscal year 2012, Cree reported revenues of $1.16 billion.  The Fox Group is apparently affiliated with Nitride Crystals, Inc., a supplier of SiC wafers which lists the ’130 patent on its website as one of its patents.

Under current U.S. patent law’s “first to invent” requirement, a patent is invalid if the listed inventors were not the first inventors of the claimed invention (i.e., the claimed invention was first invented by someone else), as long as the first inventors had not “abandoned, suppressed, or concealed” the invention (35 U.S.C. 102(g)).  To get a patent deemed invalid under this provision, the accused infringer can prove that the invention was made by someone else prior to the listed inventors doing so.  The prior inventor does not have to be the accused infringer, but in many cases, this is the case since the accused infringer typically has much more information and evidence regarding its activities than it does of the activities of some third party.

Cree showed that in 1995 it had produced a SiC wafer that included a region with an exceptionally low intrinsic defect density, as evidenced by x-ray topographs, and that this wafer met the features of the material claimed in the ’130 patent.  Cree also showed that it had publicized this result at a technical conference in 1995 and in a journal article in 1996.  Since the priority date of the ’130 patent was in 1997, the district court held that the asserted claims of the ’130 patent were invalid, and granted summary judgement to Cree.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court ruling on the basis that Cree had proved that (i) it had once made the claimed material in 1995 so its researchers were prior inventors to those of the ’130 patent and (ii) it had promptly and publicly disclosed its findings regarding the wafer’s low defect density to the public, so it had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed the invention.

Since the claims of the ’130 patent were directed to the SiC material itself, and not the process of making the material, it was enough for Cree to have shown that it once made the claimed material before the priority date of the ’130 patent, and that Cree had promptly publicized this result.  Had the claims of the ’130 patent been directed instead to a process of making such materials, Cree’s proof might have been insufficient, since it is not clear whether Cree’s public disclosure was sufficiently detailed to enable someone skilled in the technology to perform such a process.

It’s interesting to consider how the same facts would play out under the AIA’s upcoming “first inventor to file” requirement scheduled to go into effect on March 16, 2013.  Under the AIA, 35 U.S.C. 102 omits subsection (g), and the relevant portion states that “a person shall be entitled to a patent unless …  the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”  Since Cree publicized the properties of its low-defect-density SiC wafer in 1995 and 1996, before the effective filing date of the ’130 patent in 1997, the ’130 patent would be held invalid under this statute as well.

(The AIA’s statute includes an exception if the public disclosure was made by the inventors listed on the patent within one year of the patent’s effective filing date, but since the disclosure at issue was by Cree and not the listed inventors of the ’130 patent, this exception does not apply under these facts.)

 
1 Comment

Posted by on December 1, 2012 in aia, america invents act, inventorship, materials, patent law

 

Tags: , , , ,

MGA Entertainment liable for willfully infringing Innovention Toys’ patent for a laser/mirror board game

26 Nov

A jury in the Eastern District of Lousiana found last week that MGA Entertainment‘s “Laser Battle” board game which uses a laser beam and a series of mirrors willfully infringed U.S. Pat. No. 7,264,242, owned by Innovention Toys LLC.  The jury set the amount of damages to $1.6 million.  According to an article from Law360, this litigation has been going for more than five years, with many twists and turns along the way.  Innovention’s attorney fees during this five-year saga will likely take a large bite out of the damages, but Innovention has stated that they will be pursuing additional enhanced damages for MGA’s willful infringement, potentially tripling the total damages they collect from MGA.

Innovention Toys markets its own game called “Khet,” in which players “move Egyptian themed mirrored pieces after which they fire their REAL (eye-safe) laser with the goal of blasting their opponent’s pharaoh to win the game.”  I think that any of us that have aligned optical elements of a laser system on an optical table can immediately envision how the game works.

The company’s FAQ page seeks to manage the expectations of its customers by explaining that while the game’s Class II lasers, lower in power than most laser pointers, give “the neat effect of firing a laser to bombard your opponent’s pieces, you will not get the wow effect of seeing it melt or blow holes through the playing field.” 

The game is played by optics students and researchers in breakrooms around the world, and a Khet tournament was held at the 2010 Photonics West conference.  It also has been used in classrooms to teach some basic principles of light and optics. 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 26, 2012 in games and toys, infringement, laser, patent law

 

Tags: , , , ,

Aurora Lighting sued by Philips for patent infringement

06 Nov

On November 2, 2012, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. and Philips Solid-State Lighting Solutions, Inc. filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, accusing Aurora Lighting Inc. of patent infringement of seven U.S. patents for light-emitting diode lighting technology. 

         

The accused Aurora devices include various LED retrofit bulbs designed to be installed in conventional light sockets, as well as downlight flat panel products and wallwasher products.  The asserted patents disclose various power supply configurations (see here, here, and here), multicolor bulbs (see here and here), and luminaire configurations (see here and here). 

Some of the asserted patents were among the dozens of U.S. patents obtained by Philips through its acquisition of Color Kinetics, Inc. in 2007 for a purchase price of about $791 million.  Color Kinetics was then renamed to become Philips Solid-State Lighting Solutions, Inc. 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on November 6, 2012 in illumination, infringement, LED, light emitting diode, patent law

 

Tags: , , ,

Doing the examiner’s work for faster patents

06 Apr

I want to mention one last method of speeding up the patent process, which entails doing the patent examiner’s work for him/her using the USPTO’s “Accelerated Examination” (AE) program.  The AE program has the goal of completing examination of the application within twelve months.

In normal patent examination, when an application eventually reaches the top of the examiner’s queue, the examiner reviews the application, focusing on the claims, and performs a search of the existing prior art to find references relevant to the claim’s patentability.  The examiner then applies these references and the standards of patentability to the claims, including novelty and non-obviousness, and decides whether the claims are patentable or unpatentable.  The examiner’s conclusions are then sent to the applicant, who then has a chance to rebut the examiner’s reasoning or to modify the claims.

However, using the AE procedure, instead of the examiner performing the prior art search, the applicant does the searching (the search can’t be half-hearted; it has to satisfy certain requirements) and submits the results for the examiner along with the filed application.  In addition, the applicant must also provide the initial analysis to the examiner by submitting an “accelerated examination support document” (AESD) which explains the relevance of the key references to the claims, and provides a rationale for why the claims are patentable in view of these references.  Basically, the applicant has to do much of the work that is normally done by the examiner.  In exchange for lightening the load on the examiner, the USPTO puts such applications on a fast track through the USPTO.  

One contributing factor to the speed of getting the examination done quickly is that the AE program requires that an interview be conducted with the examiner before he/she writes up the first office action.  During this interview, both the examiner and the applicant try to resolve potential impediments to allowance of the application.  I discussed the power of such interviews in my previous blogpost.

Since the applicant must make statements on the record regarding the claims and the various prior art references, even those not yet cited by the examiner, the added potential of making characterizations or admissions may give some applicants pause in using the AE program.  In addition, it can be rather expensive, since performing the search and preparing the AESD can take considerable attorney time.  This factor is mitigated somewhat though because the rapid examination avoids multiple back-and-forths with the examiner, and the corresponding costs.  However, given the other avenues available for expedited examination (particularly the new “Prioritized Patent Examination” program I described in a previous blogpost), the attractiveness to the AE program is now muted.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 6, 2012 in accelerated examination, patent law

 

Tags: , ,

“Face Time”: A tried-and-true way to faster patents

15 Mar

Spending time speaking with the patent examiner reviewing your application can be a simple way to get your patent application to reach issuance faster than it would otherwise.  To explain why this “face time” can be beneficial, let me first provide a bit of background … 

Most of the communication between the USPTO and patent applicants is done in written form: the application itself (both text and figures), the written “office actions” laying out the USPTO’s evaluations regarding the patentability of the invention (typically based on prior art publications), and the applicant’s written responses to the USPTO’s evaluations, which can include arguments and/or claim amendments to refute rejections of the claims. 

Having all of these communications done in written form (called the “file history” or “prosecution history”) provides documentation of both the USPTO’s positions and the applicant’s positions regarding what the application and its claims cover and what the prior art publications disclose.  If the patent is ever the subject of litigation or a post-grant proceeding, this file history can be informative, and even dispositive in some circumstances, regarding the scope of the patent and its validity.  Therefore, any patent attorney worth his/her salt tries to keep the file history as “clean” as possible, not making any unneeded assertions or concessions regarding claim terms or prior art disclosures.

But doing everything in written form can be frustrating, and at times, inefficient.  For example, the office actions sent out by the USPTO are often not paragons of clarity, so it can be difficult to discern by reading the office action exactly what issues the examiner sees with the claims.  In addition, having the sword of “file history” hanging over the patent attorney’s head can result in some arguments being presented in ways that are less than crystal clear.  It’s also often true that explaining some nuanced distinction between the application and the cited prior art publications can be done more easily verbally than in written form. 

Recognizing the inherent limitations of operating soley in written form, the USPTO gives applicants the opportunity to speak with their patent examiners, either by telephone or by in-person interviews.  These discussions can provide a way for the examiner and the patent attorney to have a conversation about the application and the prior art references without the overhead of every single word being written down in the file history.  While a summary of the discussion is placed in the file history, this summary typically only lists the claims and prior art references that were discussed, and whether agreement was reached or not regarding the issue at hand. 

On the personal level, I find such interviews are helpful just by giving the examiner a human face to associate with the application.  Examiners seem to be less inclined to put forward flimsy or off-the-wall rejections once they’ve met me face-to-face (but my friendly visage is not infallible; some examiners put forward such rejections regardless). 

At times, it can be especially helpful to bring the inventor along for the interview.  When the technology is complex, or we have a persuasive story regarding how the invention was conceived or the problem being solved, having the inventor speak directly with the examiner can go a long way towards issuance.  Examiners are typically glad to meet the inventor, since from the examiner’s viewpoint, the invention is more important or interesting than a run-of-the-mill application for which the inventor did not take the time to meet with him.  Also, it can give an examiner a good feeling that his/her work actually has an impact in the development of a technology.

While interviews have long been permissible, historically they have only been available, upon request by the applicant, after the examiner has mailed out the first office action.  However, the USPTO has begun making interviews available even earlier in the process.  Under its “First Action Interview Pilot Program,” if an applicant requests an interview prior to the first office action (no fee required), the examiner will conduct a prior art search and will provide a condensed pre-interview communication that cites the relevant prior art publications and any proposed rejections of the claims.  The applicant then has 30 days to schedule the interview and to submit proposed amendments and/or arguments.  If agreement is reached during the interview regarding patentability, the examiner will mail out a Notice of Allowance.  If agreement is not reached, then the examiner will mail out a first office action, and prosecution proceeds normally.   

Under an earlier version of this program which was only open to applications in certain technologies, about 41% of the applications received a Notice of Allowance right after the interview (i.e., without an office action being mailed out).   The program is currently scheduled to expire May 16, 2012, but based on its success, I expect that it will be extended by another year, or even made permanent. 

To help the USPTO meet its goals for reduced pendency and faster prosecution, the USPTO is also encouraging its examiners to conduct, or even initiate, interviews where the examiner thinks that it would advance prosecution of the application.  In this way, the USPTO is acknowledging the power of a simple conversation that can be had via an interview.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on March 15, 2012 in interview, patent law

 

Tags: ,

USPTO Director Kappos to present at Knobbe’s OC office on March 15th

06 Mar

My firm, Knobbe Martens, will be hosting a presentation by USPTO Director David Kappos on March 15, 2012 at our OC office (2040 Main Street, Irvine, CA 92614). 

Director Kappos will be discussing “Building a 21st Century Patent and Trademark Office: Stimulating Technology and Fostering Innovation.”  The presentation will start at 5:00pm, followed by a brief Q&A period, and a networking reception from 6:00pm to 7:00pm.

Space is limited, but if you would like to attend, please contact stephanie.vadas@knobbe.com (tell her you heard about it on OC TechInnovation). If you have a question for Director Kappos you’d like considered, please send it along to stephanie.vadas@knobbe.com. 

I often visit Director Kappos’ blog which gives news and updates regarding U.S. patents, such as the efforts of the USPTO to reduce patent pendency.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 6, 2012 in patent law

 

Tags: , , ,

“To serve man”: Newest pathway for faster patents

05 Mar

On occasion, the USPTO enacts various initiatives that are designed to reward innovations in particular technological areas.  Examples are the various fields (e.g., energy, security, HIV/AIDS or cancer) which are eligible for petitions to have a patent application be placed on the “special” docket for expedited examination, as I described in my previous blogpost.

Recently, the USPTO announced its newest intiative: “Patents for Humanity,” a new 12-month awards competition which is intended to ”create business incentives for patent holders to engage in humanitarian issues.”  The program identifies four eligible categories (medical technology, food and nutrition, clean technology, and information technology), and gives examples as:

life-saving medicines and vaccines, medical diagnostic equipment, more nutritious or heartier crops, food storage & preservation technology, water sterilization devices, cleaner sources of household light and heat, or information devices promoting literacy and education.

A video accessible on the USPTO website gives an overview of the program, and mentions “fiber optics” as a technology that “benefits society and improves citizen’s lives in countless ways.”

A panel of experts will judge entries to the program and will award up to 50 winners in the pilot year with certificates for accelerated processing at the USPTO.  Each certificate can be used to accelerate any one matter in the certificate holder’s portfolio, even a technology different from the one that qualified for the award. 

Interestingly, besides patent examination, the certificate can also be used to accelerate an appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.  Such appeals can currently add two or more years to the pendency of a patent application, so the ability to shorten this process can be extremely valuable, especially since there is currently no other options available for accelerating such appeals.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on March 5, 2012 in patent law

 

Tags: ,

“Isn’t that special”: Getting your application on the special docket at the USPTO

27 Feb

My previous two blogposts, “Paying a Premium” and “Hitting the Highway,” explained two ways that patent applicants can get their applications examined by the USPTO faster than normal.  A third way to obtain expedited examination is described below.

Isn’t That Special: The USPTO has identified numerous criteria that warrant having patent examination expedited.  If one of these criteria is satisfied, applicants can file a “Petition to Make Special,” which if granted, place the patent application on the examiner’s “special” docket resulting in a faster track for examination.  Many of these criteria can apply to applications in the field of photonics/optics.

Filing a petition based on one of the following criteria does not require any extra fee to be paid to the USPTO:

  • Applicant’s age or health:  An applicant qualifies under this criterion if (i) one of the inventors is 65 years old or older, or (ii) the health of one of the inventors is such that he/she might not be able to assist in the prosecution of the application.  This criterion is probably the one most commonly used for petitions to make special.
  • Environment: The invention will enhance the quality of the environment, for example, by contributing to the restoration or maintenance of the basic life-sustaining natural elements (air, water, or soil).
  • Energy: The invention will contribute to the development or conservation of energy resources, for example, by contributing to the discovery, development, or efficiency of use of energy resources.
  • Security: The invention will contribute to countering terrorism, for example, detecting/identifying explosives, aircraft sensors/security systems, and vehicular barricades/disabling systems.

Filing a petition based on one of the following criteria does require an extra fee of $130:

  • Prospective manufacture: To qualify, resources for manufacturing the invention must be lined up, and manufacturing in the U.S. must be dependent on the patent being granted.  Applicant must also identify the prior art references deemed to be most closely related to the invention.
  • Actual infringement: To qualify, an analysis comparing a device/method that is actually in the market or in use to the claims of the application must show that infringement unquestionably is occurring (in the view of the petitioner).  Applicant must also identify the prior art references deemed to be most closely related to the invention.
  • Recombinant DNA: The invention relates to safety of research in the field of recombinant DNA.
  • Superconductivity: The invention relates to superconducting materials, or their manufacture or application.
  • HIV/AIDS or cancer: The invention contributes to the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of HIV/AIDS or cancer.
  • Biotechnology being developed by a small entity: To qualify, development of the technology must be significantly impaired if patent examination is delayed.

While there has been some debate regarding exactly how much time is gained by having an application deemed to be “special,” for applications for which speed of examination is desired, it can be a relatively inexpensive and easy option.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on February 27, 2012 in patent law, petition to make special

 

Tags: ,

“Hitting the Highway” to faster patents

08 Feb

My last blogpost, “Paying a Premium,” described the problem of excessively long pendency of patent applications at the USPTO, and how the “Prioritized Patent Examination Program” can be used to expedite an application through the USPTO within one year by paying an extra fee ($2,400 or $4,800, depending on the size of the applicant).  Below I describe another way to obtain faster examination by the USPTO.

Hitting the Highway:  One of the ways that the USPTO is seeking to increase the speed of examination is by leveraging the results of examination that has already been performed by the patent offices of other countries and regions via one of the many “Patent Prosecution Highways” (PPHs).  Based on a favorable examination which finds at least one patentable claim in a related foreign patent application (in one of the eligible countries or regions), a U.S. applicant can file a “Petition to Make Special,” which is a request to have the examination of the U.S. application fast-tracked at the USPTO.  Once the petition is granted, the USPTO strives to provide a first office action within two to three months.  The requirements for the petition are easy to provide, and in contrast to the “Paying a Premium” option of my previous blogpost, there is no additional fee for filing the PPH petition.

By allowing U.S. examiners to reuse search and examination results generated by these foreign patent offices, the PPH program is designed to “streamline patent processing” and to “allow applicants to obtain patents faster and more efficiently.”  According to a video on the USPTO website, applications that go through the PPH program have an allowance rate more than double that of non-PPH applications.  Also, PPH applications generally receive fewer office actions than do non-PPH applications, so the cost of prosecution can be reduced by using the PPH program. 

To qualify for the PPH program, the application must be related to a foreign application and its claims must sufficiently correspond to the claims deemed allowable by the foreign patent office.  Also, examination of the U.S. application must not have already begun.  Currently the list of eligible foreign patent offices includes: Australia  Austria, Canada, China, Denmark, European Patent Office, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Norway, Russia, Singapore, Spain, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom.  The USPTO also has a PPH program for Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications, and it is continuing to pursue additional partnerships with other foreign patent offices as well.

These PPH programs also can be used to leverage a favorable examination in the U.S. to get faster examination in the participating foreign countries.  I’ve had good success in traveling these highways in both directions to expedite prosecution.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on February 8, 2012 in patent law, patent prosecution highway, petition to make special

 

Tags: , ,

← Older posts
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 47 other followers