Library Search

FAQ   Summaries of Law   Dictionary

• CLONING PATENTS: A PATENT OFFICE AND LEGISLATIVE UPDATE ( September 2004 )
  Lana M. Knedlik of

  Given the ongoing debate in the political arena about stem cells research and human cloning, this article investigates the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (PTO) past and present practice with respect to patenting such technologies. Interestingly enough, the cloning debate is no stranger to Missouri and Kansas. A couple of years ago, the University of Missouri obtained U.S. Patent No. 6,211,429. The patent was directed to a cloning technique used with "mammals," in which humans were not expressly excluded from the definition of "mammals."

• Considerations for Patenting ( June 2005 )
  Steven J. Prewitt of Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt

  Prior to taking the first patenting step, every organization should first consider how the patent will fit within the objectives of the business or within the mission of the organization. A patent is not the end goal, but is a business tool, that, when used properly, adds value to an organization. Thus, a determination of the commercial objectives for the technology is crucial to extracting value from the patent.

• Outsourcing Patent Applications: Issues to Consider Before Jumping on the Bandwagon ( May 2005 )
  Daniel B. Pollack and Vid R. Bhakar of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P.

  One of the great economic phenomena of our day is the outsourcing of the U.S. economy's service and information-technology work overseas. It is estimated that by the end of this year, more than 80 percent of the world’s largest 2,000 corporations will have established significant outsourcing operations.

• Reaching The Summit--Prevailing At The Federal Circuit ( February 2005 )
  Mark D. Schuman, Julie R. Daulton, Jeffer  Ali, Rebecca A. Bortolotti and Denise M. Kettelberger of Merchant & Gould P.C

  Intellectual property (IP) is an integral part of any business strategy, impacting market decisions, company differentiation and positioning. IP drives revenue, market share and shareholder value. Protecting and enforcing the company’s intellectual property by prevailing at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals is akin to reaching the summit of Everest. The path is notoriously difficult and dangerous, but the prize justifies the risks. A judgment of patent infringement can cause great harm to infringing companies and may result in an award of damages so large that the infringing company cannot survive. Failure can be devastating. The asserted patents can be found not to have been infringed, or worse, invalid or unenforcable. Like climbing Everest, success before the Federal Circuit requires knowledge of the terrain, necessary tools for every stage and a wealth of experience to respond to the unexpected. It is a serious undertaking, with much in the balance.

• Re-Examining Patent Interpretation: Too Little, Too Late? ( January 2005 )
  Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P.

  Interpreting the scope of patent claims can be like trying to parse a novel jointly written by Stephen Hawking and James Joyce. The unenviable task of legally interpreting the scope of patent claims was taken from juries and given exclusively to judges in 1995 in the Markma. But shifting the responsibility did little to make patent litigation a less toxic odyssey of expense and uncertainty. Now the Federal Circuit, the nation's highest patent court, has before it the Philips v. AWH Corporation case, which addresses the fundamental guidelines for the claim construction task.

• Reaching the Summit - Prevailing at the Federal Circuit ( January 2005 )
  Merchant & Gould P.C

  Intellectual property (IP) is an integral part of any business strategy, impacting market decisions, company differentiation and positioning. IP drives revenue, market share and shareholder value. Protecting and enforcing the company's intellectual property by prevailing at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals is akin to reaching the summit of Everest. The path is notoriously difficult and dangerous, but the prize justifies the risks.

• Determining the Scope of an Invention as Written in Patent Claims: FindLaw Interview with Byron W. Cooper of Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP ( October 2004 )
  FindLaw M V

  Byron W. Cooper is one of the co-practice group leaders of the Litigation Practice Group at Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP. He counsels clients regarding litigation, licensing, patent prosecution, intellectual property portfolios and has assisted in high-profile patent litigation cases nationwide defending and prosecuting claims of infringement and the validity of patents. Mr. Cooper earned his J.D. from University of California at Los Angeles (1993); M.S. from University of Southern California (1988) and his B.S. from United States Military Academy at West Point (1986).

• Katz Patent Reexaminations: A Change in Momentum Favoring RAKTL Targets ( June 2004 )
  Michael D. Bednarek, Lawrence J. Gotts and Mark  Koehn of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

  On March 26, 2004, the Director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office issued reexamination orders regarding four patents from the Katz Patent Portfolio, representing nearly 350 separate claims. Although the orders require reexamination of only a fraction of the claims in the Katz Patent Portfolio, likely these Director-initiated reexaminations will invigorate prior art searching efforts and requests for reexamination proceedings by companies Katz has approached about taking a license.