Notice from the European Patent Office (12/9)
3. The Japan Patent Office, the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office and the United States Patent and Trademark Office have agreed to provide the EPO in electronic form with the search results covered by Rule 141(1) EPC. Therefore, the President of the EPO has now decided that the EPO will also include the above-mentioned copy in the file of a European patent application, thus exempting the applicant from filing the copy himself, where the priority of a first filing made in Japan, the United Kingdom or the United States of America is claimed
ランキング方法は以下の通り。The data is extracted from Essential Science IndicatorsSM.(ESI) which is used by research institutions around the world; it is a statistical database for measuring research performance through publication and citation trends. ESI accumulates information on researchers and research institutions ranked within the top 1 percent worldwide based on the number of citations received.
Table 1: General (Out of 4,272 institutions)
Rank World Rank Institution Name
1 11 The University of Tokyo
2 31 Kyoto University
3 37 Osaka University
4 65 Tohoku University
5 67 Japan Science and Technology Agency (独立行政法人)
6 110 Nagoya University
7 124 Kyushu University
8 129 RIKEN Institute of Physical and Chemical Research (独立行政法人)
9 146 Hokkaido University
10 151 National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (独立行政法人)
1. DOCUMENT TYPES AND KIND CODES
公开(1985 to April 2010)
unexamined patent publication (A)
申请公布 (from April 2010)
publication of application (A)
re-issue of front page of A document (A8)
re-issue of complete A document (A9)
审定公告 (1985 to 1993)
examined patent publication (B)
授权公告 (1983 to April 2010)
granted patent publication (C)
授权公告 (from April 2010)
granted patent publication (B)
re-issue of front page of B document (B8)
re-issue of complete B document (B9)
amended B document after partial invalidation (C1-C7)
公告 (1985 to 1993)
pre-grant utility model publication (U)
授权公告 (1993 to April 2010)
registered utility model publication (Y)
授权公告 (from April 2010)
registered utility model publication (U)
re-issue of front page of U document (U8)
re-issue of complete U document (U9)
amended U document after partial invalidation (Y1-Y7)
2. NUMBER FORMATS
yyyy t nnnnnnn.n application numbers
four digits for the year (y)
one digit for the type of patent right (t)
seven digits for the serial number (n)
one check digit (.n)
(before October 2003: yy t nnnnn.n)
t nnnnnnnn publication numbers
one digit for the type of patent right (t)
eight digits for the serial number (n), no year
(before August 2007: t nnnnnn*)
(*NOTE: Before April 2010, applications and granted documents were published with different numbers. Nowadays, the same number is used for both publication stages. Therefore, in cases where the application was published before August 2007, the old number format is kept for the granted document.)
3. Types of patent right (t)
1 - patent for invention
2 - patent for utility model
3 - patent for design
8* - PCT application (patent) entering national phase in China
9* - PCT application (utility model) entering national phase in China
(* types 8 and 9 are only used in application numbers)
PURPOSE: A love bed is provided to enable a couple in sex help change their positions easily by elevating/descending an auxiliary back plate, thereby man is able to perform various skills on his lover while fucking without pull out his penis. CONSTITUTION: At one corner of the love bed, an auxiliary back plate is installed. The auxiliary back plate is designed movable upward/downward similar as hospital bed. Therefore, irrespective of the height of user, optimal fucking positions are possible.
Darby & Darby, a century-old New York intellectual property boutique, said Friday that it would begin the process of dissolving.
The decision follows a series of departures, as partners left to join general practice firms including McDermott Will & Emery and Stroock & Stroock & Lavan. Darby & Darby made the decision to dissolve after it was unable to work out a merger, according to the firm's spokeswoman, Beth Silberstein.
|2010/1/25||09-1032.pdf||DCT||Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.||P|
[T]he USPTO will be processing recalculation requests under an interim procedure that is available to a patentee whose patent issues prior to March 2, 2010, and who requests it no later than 180 days after the issue date. This procedure is available only for alleged errors in calculation that are specifically identified in Wyeth. A copy of the notice submitted to the Federal Register for publication and the form for patentees to use in requesting a recalculation of patent term is on the USPTO Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/pta_wyeth.pdf.
Protecting your company against patent assertions by non-practicing entities (NPEs) has become a high-cost, high-risk responsibility for patent counsel and litigation management. RPX was formed to help you mitigate this growing problem by enabling you to incorporate defensive patent purchasing into your patent strategy.
Patent litigation by non-practicing entities has increased dramatically in the last decade, driven by a major influx of investment that has allowed NPEs to acquire a growing number of patent rights to use offensively. RPX’s response is to fight fire with fire.
We put our capital to work in your defense, buying patent rights that could otherwise be asserted against you. For a modest annual fee - often less than the cost of a single patent assertion defense - RPX members will have a license to all of the patent rights we have aggregated, thus reducing their exposure to NPE assertions and costs.
RPX has pioneered a new and effective way to address the NPE problem. Find out how we can help your company with our RPX services.
1 Virginia Eastern District Court
2 Texas Eastern District Court
3 Delaware District Court
4 Wisconsin Western District Court
5 California Central District Court
6 Florida Middle District Court
7 Texas Southern District
8 New Jersey District Court
9 Colorado District Court
10 Texas Northern District Court
10 Ohio Northern District Court (tie)
We’re starting our new Intellogist blog with a call to action for the patent community! We’ve been pondering the decision to start a blog for a while, but recently an event occurred which made us realize the time was right. On Friday January 15th, we received the following message from the Boliven Innovation Network team:
After approximately a year of beta product releases and extensive user feedback, the Board of the company has determined that it no longer makes good business sense to continue to operate the Boliven website and associated services. We were happy that over 100,000 unique monthly visitors and over 6,000 registered members found utility from Boliven, but as of the end of last year we had fallen short of some of our other operational and financial goals.
There is no doubt that these are challenging economic times, but it’s still a real shock to see that Boliven has to cease supporting its community of patent professionals despite its apparent success and high registration. The Intellogist staff has always believed that patent information professionals have the potential to create extremely active online communities, but obviously Boliven was unable to create a profitable venture out of supporting one. In the wake of this surprising event, it’s worth asking what they did right, as well as what they did wrong. Did you have a Boliven account? If so, what will you miss about the service? Let us know in our comments section – we want to hear your thoughts!
MPEP § 1402
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 251, the error upon which a reissue is based must be one which causes the patent to be "deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent."
September 24, 2007 づけデクラレーションには以下の記載
The inventor asserted that he believed that “the original patent is at least partially inoperative by reason of claiming more or less than [he] had a right to claim in the original patent.”
The inventor further asserted:
That while I recognize the importance of the aspects of the invention disclosed in the original patent, I did not fully understand the scope of the claims under U.S. law, and thus, when the original application was prepared, I failed to recognize that the disclosed invention was not fully covered by the original claims.
すべて残したものの、審査官はthe reissue declaration cannot satisfy the error required under 35 U.S.C. § 251 because it cannot properly allege that the patent is wholly or partly inoperative or invalid by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent.
Dear Mr. Kappos,
I have been practicing before the USPTO for 12 years now and have seena lot of ridiculous stuff, but this takes the cake. Note the attached"Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment" and the grounds therefore -- theperiod at the end of claim 1 was accidentally caught in the underlineof the word processing selection when indicating the amended language.
Chief Judge Paul R. Michel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuitasked the members of this Project to come together to develop a handbook for trial courts toconsult when deciding issues of compensatory damages in patent infringement cases. The goalwas to create a handbook drafted by a committee, national in scope, with members from thebench, bar and academia, including in-house counsel from a variety of industries, and patentdamages experts. The underlying idea was to benefit from the collective experience of judges,attorneys, academics and economists in how best to achieve the “just, speedy and inexpensivedetermination”1 of patent damages. Recognizing that patent damages law is an area thatcontinues to evolve, this handbook is not an attempt to restate substantive damages law or predictits future evolution but is instead focused on procedural practices that may be helpful in theadjudication of patent damages.