article thumbnail

Journey Through “Septembers” on SpicyIP (2005 – Present)

SpicyIP

Patent Opposition: Navigating SpicyIP’s September pages, I chanced upon a 2009 piece from Prof. Basheer discussing the study he conducted on opposition to pharmaceutical patent applications between 2005 and 2008 showing their abysmal number (3 % of the total applications filed!).

article thumbnail

Tips From a Former Examiner: Pre-Appeal Brief Review

IP Watchdog

Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) office actions on the merits, a patent applicant has the option to appeal the patent examiner’s decision rejecting one or more claims to a higher forum, i.e., the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). After two or more U.S.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Jumbo Patents

Patently-O

In 1982, the USPTO began charging a surcharge for patent applications that included >3 independent claims and >20 total claims. The chart below shows the percent of patents that I call “jumbo patents”–those with >50 claims (orange) and >100 claims (dashed-blue). by Dennis Crouch.

Patent 123
article thumbnail

Challenges of Proving Inventorship: Corroboration of All Inventive Facts

Patently-O

Teleflex’s patents claim a priority filing date of May 3, 2006, based on a purported conception date in early 2005. Itou’s priority application was filed in Japan in September 2004, and a year later, the US application was filed on September 23, 2005. ” Dissent.

article thumbnail

COVID-19 Vaccine Patent Infringement? The Battle Between Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech Continues

SpicyIP

In 2005, they published their research and insights in a series of research papers and also filed a patent application disclosing this modification (which eventually issued as patent no. However, this discovery was made much before Moderna’s patent application and even before Moderna was incorporated.

article thumbnail

Evergreening of Patents

Kashishipr

The main objective of Sections 26C and 27D was to prevent the patent holders from getting an extension on their patents by taking advantage of loopholes and undue benefits of the Justice system. India changed its Patents Laws in 2005 to comply with the TRIPS Agreement. Conclusion.

Patent 105
article thumbnail

EFTA-India Free Trade Agreement and Patents Rules Amendment: Compromising Public Accountability and Transparency in the Indian Patent System

SpicyIP

Significantly, the agreement requires India to make substantive changes to its provision obligating a patent applicant to furnish information about their foreign applications corresponding to their application in India. At the least, India could prevent granting patents to frivolous and low-quality patents.

Patent 72