Inventors overseas can contest patents at PTO; now, inventors outside North America can assert priority for patents through interferences
Article Abstract:
The most important change which GATT made in US patent law was that inventors outside the US, Canada and Mexico can now prove US patent interferences, meaning that, for the first time, foreign businesses will be on a level playing field for litigating interferences with their US, Canadian and Mexican colleagues. Foreign corporations will be more likely to win interferences if they save their documents and educate their employees. Researchers should retain relevant documents and be sure to show their colleagues their work. Foreign companies should be prepared to obtain full benefit from this change in US patent law.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1997
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Quality review and control in the PTO: the historical evolution
Article Abstract:
The Patent and Trademark Office has had a quality focus throughout its history, but the formal Quality programs in use have their roots in a 1961 Commissioner's study. This study recommended two separate organizations, one to handle patent quality problems in view of an earlier study indicating that 50% of the appealed litigated patents were held invalid, and the second as a formal examiner training program. This led to the Office of Examining Control and the Patent Academy.
Publication Name: Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0882-9098
Year: 1999
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
What's left of In re Braat after In re Berg?
Article Abstract:
The 3M Corp filed applications for patents for both generic and subgeneric inventions on the same day, and included in each application comparative evidence which apparently proved that the subgeneric invention merited a patent more than the generic one. 3M thought a two-way obviousness test would be used and that it would not need to file a terminal disclaimer because it could prove that its subgeneric claims merited different patents from its generic ones.
Publication Name: Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0882-9098
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Courts, Congress re-examine nondrug products; makers of dietary supplements now can tout health benefits with less FDA interference
- Abstracts: More corporations using 'Net to reach investors; annual reports, shareholder proposals and proxy materials are accessible on the Internet
- Abstracts: Mchape: a wake-up call for AIDS control programs in Africa (a case history for Malawi). The "best proven therapeutic method" standard in clinical trials in technologically developing countries
- Abstracts: Checkpoints on the conversion highway: some trouble spots in the conversion of nonprofit health care organizations to for-profit status
- Abstracts: Could mark owners sue media for generic use? Suits charging mark misuse could be filed, consistent with First Amendment principles