Category: Patents

Abandoned Patent Application

Is An Abandoned Patent Application Public?

How Does a Patent Application Become Abandoned?

An abandoned Patent Application occurs when the Applicant does not meet United States Patent Office’s (USPTO) requirements in responding to the USPTO.

Are They Public Record?

Does an abandoned US Patent become public record when it is abandoned?  It depends!  For national security reasons, some Patents are kept top secret.

With the exception of top secret Patents, when a US Patent is granted the contents of the granted Patent’s USPTO file wrapper become public record.

As a general rule:

  1. When a US Patent Application is abandoned, the USPTO file wrapper for the US Patent Application does not become public record.
  2. A US Provisional Patent Application does not become public record.

Existing Patent Applications Available to the Public Include:

  • Published Patent Applications
  • Reissue Patent Applications
  • Documents that were sealed as a condition of filing the Patent Application
  • Arbitration records associated with a Patent Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceeding
  • All documents and evidence entered in a US Patent’s Reexamination Proceedings’ records

Abandoned Patent Applications Available to the Public

  • Unpublished abandoned applications (including provisional applications) that are identified or relied upon
  • Unpublished pending applications (including provisional applications) whose benefit is claimed
  • Unpublished pending applications (including provisional applications) that are incorporated by reference or otherwise identified

USPTO Legal Authority Regarding Public Records of Patent Applications

37 Code of Federal Regulations Section 1.11

37 Code of Federal Regulations Section 1.14

Ask Us Anything… About Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are located in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville standard metropolitan statistical areas and have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please send us an email.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Patent Enablement and the Supreme Court's Ruling

Patent Enablement

Patent Enablement

What is “Patent Enablement” and is it required to procure a Patent?

For a Patent to be valid, the Patent’s Specification shall, “contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.”

-35 United States Code 112(a)

Defendants in a patent infringement suit can argue that the Patent is invalid because it does not enable one skilled in the art to make or use the invention claimed. In short, the Patent is missing Patent enablement.

What the US Supreme Court Says About Patent Enablement

The United States Supreme Court Revisits Patent Enablement in Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al (May 18, 2023)

Justice Gorsuch delivered a unanimous decision of the United States Supreme Court.

On pages 5-6, the Court writes:

“The case comes to us this way. Several years ago, petitioners (Amgen) obtained two patents. Together, these patents claim a monopoly over all antibodies that (1) bind to specific amino acids on a naturally occurring protein known as PCSK9, and (2) block PCSK9 from impairing the body’s mechanism for removing LDL cholesterol from the bloodstream. Soon after receiving these patents, Amgen sued respondents (Sanofi) for infringement. In response, Sanofi argued that the patents were invalid under §112 of the Patent Act. That provision requires a patent applicant to describe its invention “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art . . . to make and use the [invention].” 35 U. S. C. §112(a). Sanofi contended that Amgen’s patents failed to meet this standard because they sought to claim for Amgen’s exclusive use potentially millions more antibodies than the company had taught scientists to make. In the end, both the district court and Federal Circuit sided with Sanofi. The question we face is whether to disturb their judgment.”

On pages 9-10 of Amgen, it is written:

“As part of its submission to the patent office, Amgen identified the amino acid sequences of 26 antibodies that perform these two functions, and it depicted the three-dimensional structures of two of these 26 antibodies. 987 F.3d, at 1083. But beyond that, Amgen only offered scientists two methods to make other antibodies that perform the binding and blocking functions it described. The first method is what Amgen calls the “roadmap.” Brief for Petitioners 13. At a high level, the roadmap directs scientists to: (1) generate a range of antibodies in the lab; (2) test those antibodies to determine whether any bind to PCSK9; (3) test those antibodies that bind to PCSK9 to determine whether any bind to the sweet spot as described in the claims; and (4) test those antibodies that bind to the sweet spot as described in the claims to determine whether any block PCSK9 from binding to LDL receptors. See id., at 13-14. The second method is what Amgen calls “conservative substitution.” Id., at 14, 17. This technique requires scientists to: (1) start with an antibody known to perform the described functions; (2) replace select amino acids in the antibody with other amino acids known to have similar properties; and (3) test the resulting antibody to see if it also performs the described functions. See id., at 14-15. Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (2023)”

On page 19, the Court wrote:

“Decisions such as Wood and Minerals Separation establish that a specification may call for a reasonable amount of experimentation to make and use a patented invention. What is reasonable in any case will depend on the nature of the invention and the underlying art. See Minerals Separation, 242 U.S., at 270-271; see also Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. 620, 644 (1872) (“[T]he definiteness of a specification must vary with the nature of its subject. Addressed as it is to those skilled in the art, it may leave something to their skill in applying the invention.”). But in allowing that much tolerance, courts cannot detract from the basic statutory requirement that a patent’s specification describe the invention “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art” to “make and use” the invention. §112(a). Judges may no more subtract from the requirements for obtaining a patent that Congress has prescribed than they may add to them. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 602-603, 612 (2010). Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (2023)”

On page 20, Justice Gorsuch concluded:

“While the technology at the heart of this case is thoroughly modern, from the law’s perspective Amgen’s claims bear more than a passing resemblance to those this Court faced long ago in Morse, Incandescent Lamp, and Holland Furniture. Amgen seeks to monopolize an entire class of things defined by their function-every antibody that both binds to particular areas of the sweet spot of PCSK9 and blocks PCSK9 from binding to LDL receptors. The record reflects that this class of antibodies does not include just the 26 that Amgen has described by their amino acid sequences, but a “vast” number of additional antibodies that it has not. 987 F.3d, at 1085, 1088; see 2019 WL 4058927, *8 (“at least millions of candidates”); see also Tr. of Oral Arg. 52-53. Much as Morse sought to claim all telegraphic forms of communication, Sawyer and Man sought to claim all fibrous and textile materials for incandescence, and Perkins sought to claim all starch glues that work as well as animal glue for wood veneering, Amgen seeks to claim “sovereignty over [an] entire kingdom” of antibodies. Incandescent Lamp, 159 U.S., at 476.”

“That poses Amgen with a challenge. For if our cases teach anything, it is that the more a party claims, the broader the monopoly it demands, the more it must enable. That holds true whether the case involves telegraphs devised in the 19th century, glues invented in the 20th, or antibody treatments developed in the 21st. Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (2023)”

On page 23, Justice Gorsuch held:

“Section 112 of the Patent Act reflects Congress’s judgment that if an inventor claims a lot, but enables only a little, the public does not receive its benefit of the bargain. For more than 150 years, this Court has enforced the statutory enablement requirement according to its terms. If the Court had not done so in Incandescent Lamp, it might have been writing decisions like Holland Furniture in the dark. Today’s case may involve a new technology, but the legal principle is the same. The judgment is Affirmed.”

If you find this a little complex and need assistance to make sure your Patent meets the Patent enablement requirement, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

Ask Us Anything… about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are located in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville standard metropolitan statistical areas and have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please send us an email.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact us.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Restriction Requirement for Patents

Restriction Requirement

What Our Company Did

We are a start-up existing on a shoe string budget.

An inventor not associated with our company invented a product.  Because our company expected the product would improve our bottom line, we opted to take a license from the inventor to make and sell the product.

Apparently, to save legal fees, the inventor opted to represent himself before the USPTO. Unfortunately, about two years after filing the Patent Application, the inventor received a Restriction Requirement from the USPTO.

What do we do now?

What is a Restriction Requirement?

Title 35 United States Code 121 – Restriction Requirement

35 U.S.C. 121 reads:

“If two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in one application, the Director may require the application to be restricted to one of the inventions. If the other invention is made the subject of a divisional application which complies with the requirements of section 120 it shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original application. A patent issuing on an application with respect to which a requirement for restriction under this section has been made, or on an application filed as a result of such a requirement, shall not be used as a reference either in the Patent and Trademark Office or in the courts against a divisional application or against the original application or any patent issued on either of them, if the divisional application is filed before the issuance of the patent on the other application. The validity of a patent shall not be questioned for failure of the Director to require the application to be restricted to one invention.”

35 U.S.C. 121 prevents a tribunal from using the first Application and/or first Patent from which the second Application was divided from being used to reject the claims of the second Application and/or subsequent second Patent.

Restriction Requirement – How The Inventor Can Respond

In the Restriction Requirement, the Examiner will argue something like, “The species are independent or distinct because as disclosed the different species have mutually exclusive characteristics for each identified species.  In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.”  Generally, the Examiner will suggest groupings of claims from which the Applicant can select a single group of claims for first examination.

An Applicant has an opportunity to argue against the Restriction Requirement by stating that the species are patentably indistinct.  However, this can be a risky strategy.  Such an admission can be used to reject the second species of claims as obvious in view of the first species of claims and other prior art.  In other words, the claims can be rejected as obvious pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 103.

The Better Strategy When Responding to a Restriction Requirement

When the Examiner argues for a Restriction Requirement, the Applicant can elect an invention for first prosecution.

In most instances, the better strategy for the Applicant is to elect one of the Examiner’s groupings claims for first prosecution. During prosecution, the scope of the claims can be expanded by amendment. Frequently, after the examination of the first grouping of claims, Applicant’s will file a Divisional Application including additional claims related to the invention.

Responding to a Restriction Requirement can be tricky. If you need assistance responding to a Restriction Requirement, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

Ask Us Anything… about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are located in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville standard metropolitan statistical areas and have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please send us an email.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Patent Offices are Different

Not All Patent Offices are the Same

Patent Offices around the world will likely have different rules of practice.  In other words, how you obtain your Patent can require different legal procedures and strategies.

Patent Office Characteristics

  • The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) allows an Applicant to file an Original Patent Application, a Continuation Application, a Continuation-in-Part Application and/or a Divisional Application.
  • The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) allows an Applicant to file an Original Patent Application or Divisional Application.
  • The European Patent Office (EPO) allows an Applicant to file an Original Patent Application or Divisional Application.

Types of Patent Applications

  • A Divisional Application is a Patent Application that is “divided out” from an Original Patent Application.
  • A Continuation Application is a Patent Application that claims priority to a prior pending Patent Application where the new Continuation Application is filed before the prior Pending Patent Application is patented. A Continuation Application is supported by the Specification and Drawings of the prior pending Patent Application.
  • A Continuation-in-Part Application is a Patent Application that claims priority to a prior pending Patent Application where the new Continuation-in-Part Patent Application is filed before the prior Pending Patent Application is patented. A Continuation-in-Part Application includes “new matter” that was in included with the Specification and/or Drawings of the prior pending Patent Application.
  • Divisional Patent Applications, Continuation Patent Application and Continuation-in-Part Patent Applications can be utilized by the owner to extend the scope of the Patent’s limited monopoly.

The Scenario

Our Louisville company filed original Patent Applications for the “gadget” in the USPTO, the CIPO, the EPO and other Patent Offices around the globe. After filing the Patent Applications, our engineering department invented our new and improved “gadget” that was similar to but slightly different than the original “gadget.”  Management decided to file additional Patent Applications claiming the improved “gadget.”

Potential Patent Offices’ Strategies

United States – USPTO

In the United States, your company could file any of the above Patent Applications for the improved “gadget.”

According to 37 C.F.R. 1.53, “a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application, may be filed under the conditions specified in 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c).”

European Union – EPO

The only potential option in the EPO is to file a Divisional Patent Application.  However, your improved “gadget” claims would only be allowed by the EPO if you can meet the conditions of EPO Rule 3.1.

EPO Rule 3.1 – Replacement or Removal of Features from a Claim 

“The requirements of Art. 123(2) are only met if the replacement or removal of a feature lies within the limits of what a skilled person would derive directly and unambiguously, using common general knowledge and seen objectively and relative to the date of filing (or the date of priority according to Art. 89, from the whole of the application documents G 3/89, G 11/91 and G 2/10).

Art. 123(2)

If the amendment by replacing or removing a feature from a claim fails to pass the following test by at least one criterion, it necessarily contravenes the requirements of Art. 123(2):

(i)      the replaced or removed feature was not explained as essential in the originally filed disclosure;

(ii)     the skilled person would directly and unambiguously recognize that the feature is not, as such, indispensable for the function of the invention in the light of the technical problem the invention serves to solve (in this context special care needs to be taken in cases where the technical problem is reformulated during the proceedings, see H-V, 2.4 and G-VII, 11); and

(iii)    the skilled person would recognize that the replacement or removal requires no modification of one or more features to compensate for the change (it does not in itself alter the invention).”

Thus, in the EPO, it is unlikely than an Applicant can meet the strict conditions of Art. 123(2) for an allowable amendment to the claims of a European Divisional Patent Application.

Need Help With Your Patent Application?

If your company needs assistance with filing Patent Applications in United States and foreign jurisdictions, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you or your business are located in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville standard metropolitan statistical areas and you have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please send us an email.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, we are here to help.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Patent rights transfer around the world - Patent Rights

Patent Assignments

What are Patent Assignments?

What is a patent assignment? In general, a Patent Assignment transfers ownership of the entire patent right, title, and interest owned by one party to a second party.

Patent Assignments are a type of contract between the Assignor (current holder) of Patent rights and the Assignee (new owner) of Patent rights. Recording an executed Assignment in the Patent Offices gives notice of the change in the Patent owner.

Recording ownership of a Patent is similar to recording a deed for real property — like your house. The recording of the deed to your house gives notice of your current ownership and specifies the location of that home in the State. Recording a Patent Assignment gives notice of ownership and the location of your intangible Patent rights.

National and Regional Patent Offices

The European Patent Office is a regional Patent Office and the Japanese and United States Patent Offices are national Patent Offices.

Each national or regional jurisdiction has specific formats and rules associated with recording the ownership of Patent rights. European, Japanese, and United States Patent Offices have required wording and procedures for recording an Assignment in the European, Japanese, or United States Patent Office.

  • For an English language Assignment of Patent Rights, the Japanese Patent Office will accept a Japanese/English bilingual Assignment to record.
  • The European Patent Office will accept an English, French, or German language Assignment. After the European Patent is granted, assignments of the Validations of the European Patent are required in most member states’ Patent Offices where the current owner asserts the European Patent’s rights.
  • The USPTO accepts English language Assignments. (Non-English Assignments must be translated/transliterated into English.)

Patent Applications

Assignments of Patent Applications can also be recorded in Patent Offices. Each jurisdiction will have different rules for recording ownership of Patent Applications. In the United States, when the US Patent Application issues as a US Patent, the ownership of the Patent Application applies to the US Patent until the ownership is assigned to another person/entity.

35 United States Code (U.S.C) 261 Ownership; assignment, reads:

“Subject to the provisions of this title, patents shall have the attributes of personal property. The Patent and Trademark Office shall maintain a register of interests in patents and applications for patents and shall record any document related thereto upon request, and may require a fee therefor.

Applications for patent, patents, or any interest therein, shall be assignable in law by an instrument in writing. The applicant, patentee, or his assigns or legal representatives may in like manner grant and convey an exclusive right under his application for patent, or patents, to the whole or any specified part of the United States.

A certificate of acknowledgment under the hand and official seal of a person authorized to administer oaths within the United States, or, in a foreign country, of a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States or an officer authorized to administer oaths whose authority is proved by a certificate of a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or apostille of an official designated by a foreign country which, by treaty or convention, accords like effect to apostilles of designated officials in the United States, shall be prima facie evidence of the execution of an assignment, grant, or conveyance of a patent or application for patent.

An interest that constitutes an assignment, grant, or conveyance shall be void as against any subsequent purchaser or mortgagee for valuable consideration, without notice, unless it is recorded in the Patent and Trademark Office within three months from its date or prior to the date of such subsequent purchase or mortgage.”

For Assignments of US Patents and US Patent Applications – because of 35 U.S.C. (U.S.C) 261, Business Patent Law, PLLC advises its clients:

  • In the United States to execute Assignments of Patents or Patent Applications before a notary public.
  • In a jurisdiction other than the United States, to execute the Assignments before the appropriate apostille.

Assignments can become complicated. If your company needs assistance with its Patent Assignments, please contact BPL.

Are you or your business located in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville areas? Do you have a topic or question you would like us to address in the blog? Please send us an email!

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you want to stay up-to-date with the news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

The Hague

The European Patent

How to Get a European Patent

Can you get a European Patent on a product designed in the United States? Yes. Can Business Patent Law assist you with that patent application? Absolutely! Here are a few things you need to know about overseas patent applications, to better understand the process.

European Patent Applications

  • Applicants can file European Patent Applications (EPA) via the European Patent Convention.
  • Applicants can file EPAs via the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

Locations of the European Patent Office (EPO) for filing EPAs

  • Munich Germany is the principal office of the EPO. Other EPO offices are in Berlin, Brussels, The Hague, and Vienna.
  • Your EPA can be filed at any location of the EPO.

Professionals (Licensed by the EPO) Represent BPL’s Clients before the EPO

  • Business Patent Law (BPL) has foreign associates around the globe ready to represent BPL’s clients before various foreign Patent Offices.
  • In Europe, BPL has associate European Patent Attorneys licensed by the EPO to represent clients before the EPO.
  • BPL works closely with European associates to monitor and assist with the evolution of the EPA toward the grant of the European Patent(s).

Following Examination EPAs are Denied or Granted

  • After examination by the Examination Division of the EPO; if the Examination Division concludes that the EPA is patentable, the post-examination EPA is published.
  • On the date of publication of the post-examination EPA, the European Patent is granted.
  • The European Patent is a “bundle” of individual member states’ National Patents.

Validation of the European Patent (EP) Required in each Designated Member State

  • After the grant of the European Patent, it must be validated in the designated member states.
  • Among other things, validation requires payment of designated member state’s fees and providing translations or transliterations of the Patent if that state does not accept the validation in one of the three official languages of the EPO.

Official Languages of the EPO

  • English
  • French
  • German

Oppositions Against the Granted EP

For a period of nine months subsequent to the grant of the Patent, a third party can institute an Opposition Proceeding against the EP.  In Opposition Proceedings, filed before the Oppositions Division of the EPO, third parties argue against the patentability of the granted EP.

Member Nations of the EPO – 2022

Member Nation                                                                         EPO Member Since

AL Albania 1 May 2010
AT Austria 1 May 1979
BE Belgium 7 October 1977
BG Bulgaria 1 July 2002
CH Switzerland 7 October 1977
CY Cyprus 1 April 1998
CZ Czech Republic 1 July 2002
DE Germany 7 October 1977
DK Denmark 1 January 1990
EE Estonia 1 July 2002
ES Spain 1 October 1986
FI Finland 1 March 1996
FR France 7 October 1977
GB United Kingdom 7 October 1977
GR Greece 1 October 1986
HR Croatia 1 January 2008
HU Hungary 1 January 2003
IE Ireland 1 August 1992
IS Iceland 1 November 2004
IT Italy 1 December 1978
LI Liechtenstein 1 April 1980
LT Lithuania 1 December 2004
LU Luxembourg 7 October 1977
LV Latvia 1 July 2005
MC Monaco 1 December 1991
MK North Macedonia 1 January 2009
MT Malta 1 March 2007
NL Netherlands 7 October 1977
NO Norway 1 January 2008
PL Poland 1 March 2004
PT Portugal 1 January 1992
RO Romania 1 March 2003
RS Serbia 1 October 2010
SE Sweden 1 May 1978
SI Slovenia 1 December 2002
SK Slovakia 1 July 2002
SM San Marino 1 July 2009
TR Turkey 1 November 2000

Need a European Patent?

If your company needs assistance with European or other foreign jurisdictions’ Patent Applications, we can help.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

Do you have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog? Please send us an email.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

capital gains on patents

Capital Gains – Intellectual Properties  

Capital Gains May Be Available For The Transfer Of Intellectual Property Rights

A capital gains tax rate for the transfer of Intellectual Property is available if the transfer of Intellectual Property rights is carefully planned.

Patent Rights are not Accorded Capital Gains Status – Unless…

26 I.R.C. 1221 – Capital Asset, in part, reads:

(a)    In General

For purposes of this subtitle, the term “capital asset” means property held by the taxpayer (whether or not connected with his trade or business), but does not include –

…(3) a patent, invention, model or design (whether or not patented), a secret formula or process, a copyright, a literary, a musical/artistic composition, a letter or memorandum, or similar property, held by—

                    (A)    a taxpayer whose personal efforts created such property,

                    (B)    in the case of a letter, memorandum, or similar property, a taxpayer for whom such property was prepared or produced, or

                    (C)    a taxpayer in whose hands the basis of such property is determined, for purposes of determining gain from a sale or exchange, in whole or part by reference to the basis of such property in the hands of a taxpayer described in subparagraph (A) or (B)

Situation 1 – Patent Capital Asset

Joe was the founder of his company JoeCo. Over the years, Joe was the inventor of several Patents for the products sold by JoeCo. After 40 years in business, Joe was seeking buyers for JoeCo. AcquireCo purchased JoeCo and all assets and liabilities.

Joe can treat this transfer of Patent rights as a capital asset because the U.S. Internal Revenue code also includes 26 I.R.C. 1235. When specific facts exist, the inventor’s Patents are capital assets taxed as capital gains.

26 I.R.C. 1235 – Sale or Exchange of Patent, in part, reads:

(a)    General    A transfer (other than by gift, inheritance, or devise) of property consisting of all substantial rights to a patent, or an undivided interest therein which includes a part of all such rights, by any holder shall be considered the sale or exchange of a capital asset held for more than 1 year, regardless of whether or not payments in consideration of such transfer are—

                     (1)     payable periodically over a period generally coterminous with the transferee’s use of the patent, or

                     (2)    contingent on the productivity, use, or disposition of the property transferred.

(b)    “Holder” defined For purposes of this section, the term “holder” means—

                    (1)     any individual whose efforts created such property, or

                    (2)    any other individual who has acquired his interest in such property in exchange for consideration in money or money’s worth paid to such creator prior to actual reduction to practice of the invention covered by the patent, if such individual is neither—

                    (A)    the employer of such creator, nor

                    (B)    related to such creator (within the meaning of subsection (c)).

Situation 2 – Intellectual Property Gains

Jill was a seamstress with talent for making and selling clothing designs that generated a comfortable living for her family. Jill was a sole proprietor and over the years received two Trademark Registrations for Jill’sThings®. After 40 years, Jill sold her business to AcquiringJack, LLC with a knack for scaling small businesses. 26 I.R.C. 1221 does not prevent Jill’sThings® from being classified as capital assets. Therefore, the sale of Jill’sThings® would be treated as capital gains.

Situation 3 – Patent Capital Asset

AcquiringJack, LLC purchased all rights associated with two JoeCo Patents previously sold to a third party. AcquiringJack LLC held the JoeCo Patents for 18 months and sold the JoeCo Patents to LastMinuteCharlie, Inc. AcquiringJack, LLC’s sale of the JoeCo Patents will be treated as capital gains.

Situation 4 – No Capital Gains

Second Fiddle was an individual who was a skilled guitarist and sufficiently talented to write original music. Over the years, Second Fiddle had received Copyright Registrations for some of his musical compositions. While on a regional tour with his band, the Fiddlers, a vice president of Big Break Inc. made Second Fiddle an offer he could not turn down for his Copyright Registrations.  Second Fiddle sold his Copyright Registrations to Big Break Inc. According to 26 I.R.C. 1221, a Copyright or musical score held by the creator is not a capital asset. Second Fiddle’s sale was taxed as ordinary income.

Situation 5 – Intellectual Property Capital Gains

Philharmonic Violin was an individual who played third violin with the orchestra. Although not as musically skilled as some other violinists in the orchestra, Philharmonic Violin wrote a few concertos and was granted some Copyrights for her efforts. Philharmonic Violin assigned her Copyrights to her company, Concertos LLC. On her lucky day, Philharmonic Violin arrived early for practice and was playing some of the supporting violin portions of her concertos. Big Director, the CEO of his production company, heard the portions of Philharmonic Violin’s concertos and told Philharmonic Violin that they were perfect for the score of one of his films. On that day, Big Director wrote a check payable to Concertos LLC. Because Concertos LLC rather than Philharmonic Violin received the payment, the payment will be taxed as a capital asset.

Business Patent Law, PLLC does not provide tax counsel. The above situations are only illustrative. Changes in the facts of a taxable situation can generate different applications of Title 26 Internal Revenue Code. Advance planning for taxable situations can reduce the amount of taxes paid. For tax advice, please contact your tax advisor.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Do a Claims Check on Your Patent

Claims Checks Are Important  

Claims Checks

Doing claims checks of  your Patents are essential because they define the scope and boundaries of the Patent.

Claims are Legal Boundaries

As previously indicated in this Blog on Patent Infringement: “A deed for real property determines the real property’s boundary and what constitutes a trespass. In a similar vein, Patent claims define the intellectual property boundary of the Patent and what establishes an infringement.”

The Situation

Approximately five years ago, our company filed three Patent Applications for three separate products that our company continues to market and sell to our national and international customers.

Our attorneys and the USPTO examiners had several rounds of arguments regarding the patentability of claims of our three Patent Applications. Over this timespan, some of the as-filed claims of the three Patent Applications were amended, canceled and/or re-amended by our attorneys. Before the end of the patenting process, our attorneys also added some new claims not previously set forth in the as-filed claims. Even the examiners made some examiners’ amendments to the claims.

After all the arguments, the USPTO issued Notice of Allowances. We paid the Issue Fees and we eventually received the three granted Patents.

The claims of two of the Patent we received were perfect. However, the claims checks revealed that about half of the claims of the third Patent were incorrect.

What should we do?

Actions: When a Claims Check Reveals Errors

  • Although not recommended, a few Patent owners do not attempt to correct the incorrect claims.
  • Review the USPTO file wrapper and your files to determine where and when the claims errors occurred. If the errors were caused by the USPTO, the USPTO requires no additional fees to correct the incorrect claims. If the errors were caused by the Applicant(s), the USPTO requires the payment of a government fee to correct the errors.
  • Sometimes, other parts of a Patent contain errors that need correction.
  • Submit a Certificate of Correction (PDF) to the USPTO.

Claims can be considered the heart and soul of the Patent, so it’s essential that yours be correct.

Need More Information?

If you have a question about Claims checks, please get in touch with Business Patent Law, PLLC.

Have another topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog? Please send us an email!

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with the news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Notice of Abandonment for Patent

Notice of Abandonment

Approximately six months ago, our company’s patent attorney filed our response to the USPTO Office Action. The response was filed within the time period set by the USPTO. We just received a USPTO Notice of Abandonment of our Patent Application.

When receiving a Notice of Abandonment, do not panic. It is not uncommon for the USPTO to take months and sometimes more than a year to reply to an Applicant’s response. Applicants have two months from the date of the Notice of Allowance to file documents in the USPTO.

What Can You Do?

First, let’s determine your particular situation, based on the letter you received…

The Notice of Abandonment identifies the USPTO’s reasons for the abandonment

  • Pursuant to 37 C.F.R 1.135, prepare a complete response for the most recent Office Action that was issued prior to the Notice of Abandonment.
  • Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 1.137, prepare a Petition to Revive and pay the USPTO fee.

The Reason(s) for the Notice of Abandonment cannot be readily discerned

  • When the Examiner is known, attempt to call the Examiner.
  • Most Examiners are responsive to telephone inquiries.  However, if the Examiner is not responsive to your telephone messages, attempt to call the Examiner’s supervisor.  Supervisors generally return calls.
  • If the Examiner is unknown, search the USPTO database for one or more telephone numbers that can be of assistance in identifying USPTO personnel that may be of assistance.
  • If the Notice of Abandonment is associated with a US National Stage Application, the PCT help desk may be of assistance.

Once you have the evidence required to respond to the Notice of Abandonment:

  • Pursuant to 37 C.F.R 1.135, prepare a complete response for the most recent Office Action that was issued prior to the Notice of Abandonment.
  • Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 1.137, prepare a Petition to Revive and pay the USPTO fee.

The Code of Federal Regulations

37 C.F.R 1.135 – Abandonment for failure to reply within time period reads:

  • (a) If an applicant of a patent application fails to reply within the time period provided under § 1.134 and § 1.136, the application will become abandoned unless an Office action indicates otherwise.

  • (b) Prosecution of an application to save it from abandonment pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section must include such complete and proper reply as the condition of the application may require. The admission of, or refusal to admit, any amendment after final rejection or any amendment not responsive to the last action, or any related proceedings, will not operate to save the application from abandonment.

  • (c) When reply by the applicant is a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action, and is substantially a complete reply to the non-final Office action, but consideration of some matter or compliance with some requirement has been inadvertently omitted, applicant may be given a new time period for reply under § 1.134 to supply the omission.

37 C.F.R 1.137 – Revival of abandoned application, or terminated or limited reexamination prosecution.

In part, 37 C.F.R 1.137 reads:

(a) Revival on the basis of unintentional delay. If the delay in reply by applicant or patent owner was unintentional, a petition may be filed pursuant to this section to revive an abandoned application or a reexamination prosecution terminated under §1.550(d) or §1.957(b) or limited under §1.957(c).

(b) Petition requirements. A grantable petition pursuant to this section must be accompanied by:

  • The reply required to the outstanding Office action or notice, unless previously filed;

  • The petition fee as set forth in §1.17(m);

  • Any terminal (and fee as set forth in §1.20(d) required pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section; and

  • A statement that the entire delay in filing the required reply from the due date for the reply until the filing of a grantable petition pursuant to this section was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional.

Navigating the requirements of protecting your intellectual property can be challenging. If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.  We provide intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies. If you would like to stay up-to-date with the news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

foreign patent protection

How Much Does a Foreign Patent Cost?

Contemplating Patent Protection in Foreign Jurisdictions

During management’s last meeting, it was clear that our international sales have tripled over the last few years. Some of us expressed concern about potential “knock-offs” in other countries. Some of our suppliers are in Asia and the Pacific. We talked to other friendly companies about the costs of foreign Patents. The information provided by our friendly contacts about costs varied. Their common denominator was conjunctive – but the foreign Patent costs!

Should Our Company File Foreign Patent Applications?

It depends. As a general rule, Business Patent Law advises clients:  If a foreign Patent will not make money for the Company or prevent the Company from losing money, there is no business reason for filing one.

Patent rights create a limited monopoly in the foreign jurisdiction granting the Patent.

General Observations on the Costs of Foreign Patents.

  • Applications that can be filed in the English language tend to cost the least
  • Applications that must be transliterated from English into a non-Roman alphabet language tend to be the cost the most
  • Applications that can be translated into a foreign language using the Roman alphabet tend to cost somewhere between an English language Application and a transliterated language foreign Patent Application
  • Usually, the Parent Patent Application is a United States Patent Application prepared by Business Patent Law. When Business Patent Law’s foreign associates opt to utilize most of Business Patent Law’s United States Parent Patent Application, costs to our clients tend to be less than when foreign associates do not use BPL’s Parent Patent Application

Rankings of Costs of Procuring and Maintaining Foreign Patents in Select Foreign Jurisdictions*

  1. European Patent Office                                            14-17 x USPTO costs
  2. Japan Patent Office                                                   2.5-3 x USPTO costs
  3. Korean Intellectual Property Office                       2-3 x USPTO costs
  4. China National Intellectual Property Admin.      2-2.5 x USPTO costs
  5. Mexican Patent Office                                              1.5-2 x USPTO costs
  6. Brazilian National Institute of Industrial Prop.  1-2 x USPTO costs
  7. Australian Patent Office                                           1.0-2 x USPTO costs
  8. Russian Patent Office                                                1.0-1.5 x USPTO costs
  9. Philippines Patent Office                                          1.0-1.5 x USPTO costs
  10. Canadian Intellectual Property Office                   1.0-1.5 x USPTO costs
  11. Indian Patent Office                                                   1.o-1.5 x USPTO costs

* Estimates are based on Business Patent Law’s experience, and due to other countries’ Patent Office and foreign associates activities, fees can be outside of the above estimated ranges. Ranges are based on everything proceeding smoothly in the other Patent Offices.

If we can assist your Company with developing a foreign strategy, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.