For technology-focused companies that rely heavily on innovation, patent portfolio development is critical for establishing and expanding their competitive edge. A key for strategic portfolio development is the continuation...more
For patent attorneys, filing and prosecuting patent applications in foreign countries can be a fraught process. Each country has its own unique set of patent laws, which, though largely similar to one another, include small...more
For many parts of the world, a voluntary divisional application (known as a continuation application in the U.S.) may be filed at any time during the pendency of any parent application. The claims in the voluntary divisional...more
The Delaware legislature has enacted a change to Delaware LLC law that enables a single LLC to divide into two or more LLCs. A similar procedure is available for Delaware limited partnerships, but this article addresses only...more
After five years of anticipation, sweeping changes to Canada’s trademark law will finally come into force on June 17, 2019. The changes, which are substantial, have been canvassed in previous IP Updates. The following briefly...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Prost, Renya, and Wallach. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A patent owner cannot retroactively bring a continuation-in-part patent within the scope of § 121...more
Dividing a single patent application into multiple patents is often essential for deriving maximum economic benefit from the disclosed inventions. When an applicant wants to protect multiple inventions disclosed in a single...more
For the past few years there has been fear that the law on priority claims in the European Patent Office (EPO) could result in a divisional application becoming prior art against its parent if the divisional application...more
Addressing the “safe harbor” provision under 35 U.S.C. § 121, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a district court ruling that a reissue patent was invalid for obviousness-type double patenting. G.D....more
In Mohsenzadeh v. Lee, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that the USPTO’s delay in issuing a Restriction Requirement in a parent application does not earn Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) for the ensuing...more
In 2008, the Federal Circuit determined that claims 1-4 and 11-17 of U.S. Patent No. 5,760,068 were invalid for obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP) over a related parent patent, in part because the ‘068 patent was filed...more
In October 2013, we reported that the EPO had removed the time limits for filing divisonal applications. An outstanding detail at that time was the level of the fees that would be levied for filing second or any subsequent...more
Office changes rules for filing divisional applications so they are no longer time barred. On October 18, the Administrative Council of the European Patent Office (EPO) announced that the 2010 amendments to Rule 36 of...more
On October 16, 2013, the European Patent Office’s Administrative Council adopted amendments to the rules for divisional applications. It repealed the 24-month time limit for the filing of divisional applications in Rule 36...more
The EPO has announced that it is changing the EPO divisional application deadline rules to eliminate the current 24-month deadline for filing divisional applications, and permit the filing of a divisional application as long...more
The EPO’s Administrative Council has decided to reverse the changes made in 2010 to the rules for filing divisional applications. These changes introduced a 24-month time limit within which divisional applications had to be...more
Australia has typically been viewed as a desirable venue in which to pursue patents, in part because the rules were more lenient than in other venues, including those at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. However,...more