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.

Author: Gholz, Charles L.
International aspects, Patent law, Patent practice

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


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.

Author: Corcoran, Robert
History, Patents

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


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.

Author: Gholz, Charles L.
Cases, Patent licenses, Patent licensing

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: United States, Powers and duties, United States. Patent and Trademark Office
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.