Sarah Hankel

801 Grand Ave. #3200
Des Moines, IA 50309, United States

Hyatt v Kappos

Federal Circuit to consider en banc whether new evidence may be introduced in a section 145 action

In an order Wednesday, Feb. 17, 2010, the Federal Circuit has agreed to consider the scope of evidence to be considered in an action filed under 35 U.S.C. ยง 145 to obtain review of a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and…more
| Intellectual Property

Common sense held sufficient to invalidate claims as obvious on summary judgment

If anyone needed further proof that patents are more easily held obvious after KSR, look no further. The Federal Circuit held that a patent directed to a method of email marketing with improved efficiency was obvious based on…more
| Intellectual Property

Are Patent Holding Companies Subject to Different DJ Jurisdiction Standards

According to the Federal Circuit, the answer to this question appears to be "yes." The court reversed a district court's dismissal of a declaratory judgment action against a patent holding company (or non-practicing entity…more
| Intellectual Property

USPTO to allow accelerated examination for "green" applications without examination support document

In a press release dated Dec. 7, 2009, the USPTO announced it was beggining a pilot program to permit accelerated examination of patent applications directed to "green" technologies. The announcement came on the same day that…more
| Intellectual Property

MVS Briefs

IP newsletter featuring articles on: Fraud at the USPTO; Missing Filing Deadlines; Written Description Requirements; Abraham Lincoln: The Patentee President…more
| Intellectual Property

MVS Briefs

Intellectual property law articles on: Patent Lawsuit Raises Issues for Life Insurance Industry; Patent Reform? Judges First; Changes in EPO Claims, Pages and Designation Fees; College Color Schemes Can Protect…more
| Intellectual Property
Takeda Pharmaceutical Corp. v Doll

Developments up to second-filed application relevant to show no double patenting

The Federal Circuit has clarified the relevant timeframe for purposes of determining whether two claimed inventions are patentably distinct or would result in impermissible double patenting. The court held "the relevant time…more
| Intellectual Property
Areas of Practice
  • Intellectual Property
This profile may constitute attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Any correspondence with this profile holder does not constitute a client/attorney relationship. Neither the content on this profile nor transmissions between you and the profile holder through this profile are intended to provide legal or other advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.