Patent management

August 31, 2007

Application, Application Kit

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — admin @ 6:26 am

The Application Kit is a collection of classes within the OpenStep specification and provided by such operating systems as OPENSTEP, GNUstep, and Mac OS X under Cocoa, providing classes oriented around graphical user interface capabilities.

References

Patent, Kokai

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — admin @ 4:40 am

The kokai or kokai tokkyo koho is the name given to the published, unexamined Japanese patent application, as opposed to the kokoku or tokkyo koho, the examined and approved Japanese patent application. Kokai means “open to the public”, “laid-open”. Kokai are published eighteen months after the earliest priority date.


See also

  • Japanese patent law

References

August 30, 2007

Patentgesetz United Kingdom:, List of African territories and states by date of colonization

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 11:21 pm

This is a list of the dates when African states were made colonies or protectorates of European powers and lost their independence. It only deals with modern times, thus the expansion of the Ancient Greeks, Roman Empire, and barbarian tribes into Africa is ignored. A number of regions such as the Congo and the Sahara Desert had no organized states and it is almost impossible to tell when, or if, these areas ever became controlled by Europeans.

  • Liberia - never
  • Morocco - 1912, to France
  • Libya - 1911, to Italy
  • Fulani Empire - 1903, to France and the United Kingdom
  • Swaziland - 1902, to the United Kingdom
  • Ashanti Confederacy - 1900, to the United Kingdom
  • Burundi - 1899, to Germany
  • Kingdom of Benin - 1897, to the United Kingdom
  • Bunyoro - 1897, to the United Kingdom
  • Dahomey - 1894, to France
  • Rwanda - 1894, to Germany
  • Oubangui-Chari - 1894, to France
  • Ijebu - 1892, to the United Kingdom
  • Bechuanaland - 1885, to the United Kingdom
  • Merina - 1885, to France
  • Egypt - 1882, to the United Kingdom
  • Zulu - 1879, to the United Kingdom
  • Fante Confederacy - 1874, to the United Kingdom
  • Basutoland - 1868, to the United Kingdom
  • Comoros - 1843, to France
  • Algeria - 1830, to France
  • Zanzibar - 1503, to Portugal

References

Patent, American Inventors Protection Act

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — admin @ 4:56 pm

The American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) is a United States federal law enacted on November 29, 1999 as Public Law 106-113. In 2002, the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002, Public Law 107-273, amended AIPA.

AIPA contains significant changes to American Patent Law. AIPA added <ref>American Inventor’s Protection Act of 1999</ref>

  • An “earlier invention” defense for business method patents - 35 U.S.C. §273;
  • Publication of US patent applications for foreign published applications - 35 U.S.C. §122;
  • Patent term restoration for delays caused by the Patent and Trademark Office - 35 U.S.C. §154; and
  • The Request for Continued Examination (RCE) patent prosecution procedure.
  • Disclosure requirements for Invention promotion firms


See also

  • Patent Reform Act of 2005
  • The American Inventor’s Protection Act: A Legislative History, Wake Forest Intellectual Property Law Journal


References

<references/>

References

Patents, Europe-wide patent

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 3:43 pm
For more information about European patent law in general, see European patent law.

The expression Europe-wide patent may refer either to

  • the Community patent, a European Union project to create a unitary patent in all EU member states; or to
  • European patents, granted by the European Patent Office under to the European Patent Convention, the enforcement of which is dealt with before national courts.

References

Patent, Opposition proceeding

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — admin @ 8:23 am

An opposition proceeding is an administrative process available under the patent and trademark law of most jurisdictions which allows third parties to dispute the validity of a granted patent or trademark.


Patents

In Europe, third parties may dispute the validity of a granted European patent by filing a post-grant opposition under the European Patent Convention.

In Germany, third parties may dispute the validity of a pending German patent application under German patent law.

Under United States patent law, an opposition proceeding is called a reexamination.

In Japanese patent law, opposition procedure after an examiner’s decision to grant a patent was abandoned in 2003; trial for invalidation serves as the alternative.


Trademarks

In the case of trademarks, third parties may use opposition proceedings to “oppose” the acceptance of a trademark application after it has been accepted and published for opposition purposes. If an opposition is defeated the trademark will proceed to registration. Some jurisdictions operate a “post-grant” opposition system, whereby opposition is not possible until after registration (eg. Japan).


See also

  • Opposition procedure before the European Patent Office
  • Patent infringement
  • Patent watch
  • Patentability
  • Prior art
  • Reexamination

References

Patent application for an, Inequitable conduct

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — admin @ 3:46 am

In United States patent law, patent holders must go to the federal courts to enforce their patent rights. Even if the patent is valid and infringed, these courts may exercise their equitable discretion not to enforce the patent if the patentee has engaged in inequitable conduct. The patent applicant has a duty of candor and good faith to the US Patent and Trademark Office when applying for their patent. Breach of this duty constitutes inequitable conduct, which includes the following: (a) failure to submit prior art likely to be deemed relevant; (b) failure to explain references in a foreign language or submit pre-existing full or partial translations of the references; (c) misstatements of fact, including misstatements in affidavits concerning patentability; and (d) mis-description of inventorship.

The party asking the court to decline to enforce the patent, usually the alleged infringer, bears the burden of proving inequitable conduct to the court. This party must show by clear and convincing evidence that the patentee intentionally withheld or misrepresented material information.
Proven inequitable conduct in any claim can lead the entire patent to be unenforceable.

The law regarding Inequitable Conduct is currently evolving (see McKesson Information Solutions, Inc. v. Bridge Medical, Inc (2007)) at http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1517.pdf.


Further reading

  • McKesson v. Bridge Medical
  • Kevin Mack, Reforming Inequitable Conduct to Improve Patent Quality: Cleansing Unclean Hands, 21 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 147](2006).


See also

  • Patent misuse

References

Patent, American Inventors Protection Act

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 2:21 am

The American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) is a United States federal law enacted on November 29, 1999 as Public Law 106-113. In 2002, the Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002, Public Law 107-273, amended AIPA.

AIPA contains significant changes to American Patent Law. AIPA added <ref>American Inventor’s Protection Act of 1999</ref>

  • An “earlier invention” defense for business method patents - 35 U.S.C. §273;
  • Publication of US patent applications for foreign published applications - 35 U.S.C. §122;
  • Patent term restoration for delays caused by the Patent and Trademark Office - 35 U.S.C. §154; and
  • The Request for Continued Examination (RCE) patent prosecution procedure.
  • Disclosure requirements for Invention promotion firms


See also

  • Patent Reform Act of 2005
  • The American Inventor’s Protection Act: A Legislative History, Wake Forest Intellectual Property Law Journal


References

<references/>

References

August 27, 2007

The patents and, Erna Schneider Hoover

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 10:42 pm

Dr. Erna Schneider Hoover (b. 1926) invented a method for prioritizing processes within stored program control switching systems while working at Bell Laboratories.

This method gave priority to processes that were concerned with in the input and output of the switch over processes that were less important such as record keeping and billing. This allowed for more robust service to callers during peak load times.

The patent on the system is one of the first software patents ever issued (Patent #3623007, November 23 1971) and the principles of the system are still in use today. The invention earned her a position as the first female supervisor of a technical department at Bell Labs.

Hoover received her B.A. in medieval history from Wellesley College, and Ph.D. in the philosophy and foundations of mathematics from Yale University.


External links

  • http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/hoover.html

References

Patent, PCT Newsletter

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — admin @ 9:27 pm

The PCT Newsletter is a monthly publication of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It contains “up-to-date news about the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)”, <ref name=ApplicantGuide>PCT Applicant’s Guide, Volume I, Chapter I, item 7, Retrieved March 25, 2006.</ref> which provides a system for filing international (patent) applications. The PCT Newsletter is published in English only. Important changes to the PCT are mentioned and explained in the PCT Newsletter.


References

<references/>


See also

  • Official Journal of the European Patent Office
  • PCT Gazette
  • List of intellectual property law journals


External links

  • PCT Newsletters since 1999 available online on the WIPO web site

References

Patent, Patent model

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — admin @ 1:45 am

A patent model was a scratch-built miniature model no larger than 12″ by 12″ by 12″ (approximately 30 cm by 30 cm by 30 cm) that showed how an invention works. It was one of the most interesting early features of the United States patent system.

Since most early inventors were ordinary people without technological or legal training, it was difficult for them to submit formal patent applications which require the novel features of an invention to be described using words and a number of diagrams. Actually, the patent system then was very crude by today’s standards. It was a good idea for these amateur inventors to submit a model with a brief explanation or drawing of it.

Patent models were required from 1790 to 1880. The United States Congress abolished the legal requirement for them in 1870, but the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) kept the requirement until 1880. Some inventors still willingly submitted models at the turn of the twentieth century.


Working model

Patent models were required up until 1880 but are no longer required by the USPTO. However, in some cases, an inventor may still want to present a “working model” as an evidence to prove actual reduction to practice in an interference proceeding.

The models were sold off by the patent office in 1925 and were purchased by Sir Henry Wellcome, the founder of the Burroughs-Wellcome Co. (now part of GlaxoSmithKline). Although he intended to establish a patent model museum, the stock market crash of 1929 damaged his fortune; the models were left in storage. After his death, the collection went through a number of ownership changes; a large portion of the collection–along with $1,000,000–was donated to the nonprofit United States Patent Model Foundation by Cliff Peterson. Rather than being put into a museum, these models were slowly sold off by the foundation. A saga of legal wrangling, purchasing, and re-selling ensued.[1] A comparatively small number of models (4,000) are currently the property of the Rothschild Patent Museum.[2]


External links

  • “Patent Models’ Strange Odyssey” by Teresa Riordan, The New York Times, February 18 2002.
  • The Rothschild Petersen Patent Model Museum
  • The patent model of Alexander Graham Bell’s No. 174,465 invention
  • Patent model windmill c.1860-70

References

One patent application results, Defensive publication

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 12:46 am

A defensive publication, or defensive disclosure, is an intellectual property strategy used to prevent another party from obtaining a patent on a product, apparatus or method for instance. The strategy consists in disclosing an enabling description and/or drawing of the product, apparatus or method so that it enters the public domain and becomes prior art. Therefore, the defensive publication of perhaps otherwise patentable information may work to defeat the novelty of a subsequent patent application.

One of the major reasons why companies decide to use defensive publication over patent is cost. The cost of filing a patent application in the United States is at least a couple of thousands US dollars. The cost of defensive publication can be zero, like a conference paper.

“The defensive publication route is especially useful for innovations that do not warrant the high costs incurred in patent applications but to which scientists do want to retain access.” <ref> S. Adams, V. Henson-Apollonio, Defensive publishing: a strategy for maintaining intellectual property as public goods, Development Experience Clearinghouse, USAID, 2002 (also in pdf here)</ref>


References

<references/>


See also

  • IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin
  • Trade secret
  • United States Defensive Publication


External links

Examples of web sites providing professional defensive publication services:

  • Research Disclosure
  • IP.com

References

Patents Act Patentgesetz, Timeline of motor and engine technology

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — admin @ 12:26 am

Timeline of motor and engine technology

  • 1698 - Thomas Savery builds a steam-powered water pump for pumping water out of mines
  • 1712 - Thomas Newcomen builds a piston-and-cylinder steam-powered water pump for pumping water out of mines
  • 1769 - James Watt patents his first improved steam engine
  • 1816 - Robert Stirling invented his hot air Stirling engine
  • 1821 - Michael Faraday builds an electricity-powered motor
  • 1837 - First American patent for an electric motor ()
  • 1877 - Nikolaus Otto patents a four-stroke internal combustion engine ()
  • 1888 - Nikola Tesla patents the induction motor ()
  • 1892 - Rudolf Diesel patents the Diesel engine ()
  • 1929 - Felix Wankel patents the Wankel rotary engine ()
  • 1937 - Hans von Ohain builds a gas turbine
  • 1960s - alternators replace generators on automobile engines
  • 1970s - electronically controlled ignition appears in automobile engines
  • 1980s - electronically controlled ignition improved to reduce pollution
  • 1980s - electronic fuel injection appears on gasoline automobile engines
  • 1990s - Hybrid vehicles that run on an internal combustion engine and an electric motor charged by the previous engine to retain peak power usage.

References