Larson & Larson
FEBRUARY 13, 2021
A high number of patent applications are given a non-final rejection from the USPTO according to Yale. Often, the reason that the patent office will cite for rejecting an application is the presence of prior art. This makes the term ‘prior art’ an important concept for inventors to understand.
Intepat
FEBRUARY 13, 2021
One of the most common reasons an invention is rejected from being protected is the existence of prior art, or that the said invention is not novel and has already been, in fact, for some time now. This, in turn, will help you create a stronger patent claim and reduce the number of amendments you might have to make at later stages.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
43(B)log
OCTOBER 9, 2023
28, 2023) Cap Export alleged that Zinus fraudulently obtained a patent after Zinus used the public domain bed-in-a-box sets of a non-party as the basis for its patent application. Zinus, Inc., 2023 WL 6381821, No. 2:21-cv-07148-JWH-MRWx (C.D.
Kashishipr
MAY 25, 2022
A patent search is the first step of the Patent Registration process in India, and that too is a crucial one. By performing a patent search, you can get an indication of what all information is available and accessible in the public domain concerning the proposed invention. Types of Patent Search.
Intellectual Property Law Blog
MARCH 15, 2021
This Federal Circuit decision is a reminder to patent applicants that piecemeal success before the Patent Office that does not conform to a coherent overarching prosecution strategy can invalidate patent rights. After further prosecution, a patent was granted. Background. Conclusion.
Biswajit Sarkar Copyright Blog
MARCH 6, 2024
What is a prior-art search? Prior art, the term mostly used during patent applications, is used to describe all information available in the public domain before the priority or filling date of the patent application. This information is related to the patent applications.
LexBlog IP
AUGUST 22, 2022
Chester and MEA filed a related patent application, which was approved in part. Second, the Seventh Circuit held that even if REXA had identified a trade secret, REXA had not established that defendants misappropriated trade secrets when MEA filed its patent application or developed the Hawk actuator. ” Id.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
52 
Let's personalize your content