Articles and Publications

Thompson Documents
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
The Pre-critical Date Claims at Issue in Thompson v. Hamilton Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. v, Monsanto Technology LLC, 671 F.3d 1324, 1328, 101 USPQ2d 1849, 1852 (Fed. Cir. 2012)(opinion by Senior Circuit Judge Clevenger for a panel that also consisted of Circuit Judges Prost and ...
Using 35 Usc 154(D) To Speed Interferences
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Using 35 Usc 154(D) To Speed Interferences[1] By Charles L. Gholz[2] and Vincent K. Shier[3] Introduction If an interference is won by an applicant interferent and the losing party seeks court review of the board’s decision, it is the PTO’s normal practice to withhold issuance ...
Annual Review of Intellectual Property Law Developments, ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law (2011)
Monday, April 16, 2012
Eric W. Schweibenz is a Contributing Author of the "Annual Review of Intellectual Property Law Developments, ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law (2011)".
Patent Trolls Hiding in the Intl. Trade Commission?
Friday, April 13, 2012
Patent holding companies that do not make products (but assert their patents against companies that do) are commonly referred to as “patent trolls” and also, less pejoratively, as “non-practicing entities” and, more recently, as “patent aggregators.” Patent trolls typically sought relief for ...
Cancellation of Patent Claims in an Interference After Those Claims Have Been Held Not Invalid in an Infringement Action
Monday, April 2, 2012
Cancellation Of Patent Claims In An Interference After Those Claims Have Been Held Not Invalid In An Infringement Action[1] By Charles L. Gholz[2] and Greg H. Gardella[3] Introduction In re Construction Equipment Co., 665 F.3d 1254, 100 USPQ2d 1922 (Fed. Cir. 2011), raises the question of ...
Practice Implications of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
Thursday, March 1, 2012
The patent world changed significantly Sept. 16, 2011, when President Obama signed into law the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, thereby implementing the most comprehensive reform to U.S. patent law since 1952. Written with an interest in moving toward global harmony with other patent systems ...
A Possible Solution To The Agilent v. Affymetrix Problem
Thursday, March 1, 2012
A Possible Solution To The Agilent V. Affymetrix ...
USPTO Self-Report on Track I Prioritized Examination
Thursday, February 2, 2012
On September 26, 2011, the U.S. Patent Office implemented a new system for obtaining prioritized examination of certain applications following passage of the America Invents Act. This “Track I ” Prioritized Examination permits applicants to have their patent applications examined to a final ...
Plant Biotechnology and Agriculture
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Intellectual property rights of biotechnologically improved plants. In: Arie Altman and Paul Michael Hasegawa, editors.
Geneva Pharm., Inc. v. Glaxosmithkline, PLC Should Be Overruled!
Monday, January 2, 2012
Prior to the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Geneva Pharm., Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline, PLC, it was well-established that obviousness-type double patenting (hereinafter referred to as “OTDP”) analysis only considers the subject matter defined by the claims and that the content of the specifications of the two cases under consideration may only be used to construe the metes and bounds of those claims. However, contrary to (but without purporting to overrule ) precedent, the three-judge Geneva panel held that unclaimed utility, disclosed in the specification of a patent claiming a compound, could be used as if it were prior art and combined with the subject matter defined by a compound claim to invalidate claims to methods of using the compound on OTDP grounds.