Is it copending if you filed it on the day the parent issued?

I’ve always assumed that if I manage to get my continuation or divisional application filed on the very day that the parent application issues, that’s good enough.  The domestic benefit under 35 USC § 120 will work.  Right?

Alert reader David Berry drew my attention to a February 11, 2015 ruling by Judge Richard G. Andrews in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in a summary judgment motion in the case of Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp. civil action 12-259.  The ruling suggests that when the USPTO grants a patent, it does so at about 12:01 AM on the Tuesday, and that a would-be continuation or divisional application filed after 12:01 AM on that Tuesday would lack copendency under 35 USC § 120.

Continue reading

What will happen next with the Supreme Court case of CLS v Alice (software and business method patents)

In this blog I will try to review what has happened thus far in the CLS v Alice case, which deals with software and business method patents.  And I will talk about what the Supreme Court is likely to say when it decides this case next month.  Finally I will discuss the likely effect of the upcoming Supreme Court decision on the tens of thousands of already-issued software and business method patents.

Continue reading

Supreme Court on patent attorneys fees

Today the Supreme Court published two opinions, each dealing with attorneys’ fees in patent cases.  See Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc. and Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.

Continue reading

PTAB speaks on 35 USC § 101 — or is it § 103? CRS v Frontline

Well, we are starting to see the work product of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, whose goal for many of the new AIA proceedings is to dispose of them within a year.  Here’s the decision in CRS Advanced Technologies, Inc. v. Frontline Technologies, Inc. (Case CBM2012-00005), instituted January 23, 2013 and decided just under a year later on January 21, 2014.

CRS wanted to invalidate some of the claims of US Patent 6,675,151.  Doing so in court would likely have cost half a million dollars or more.  CRS picked the Covered Business Method approach and (I’d guess) probably spent well under a quarter million dollars.  And prevailed.

What I would have hoped is that the decision might help to clarify what practitioners need to do to draft patent applications that will survive post-grant review (whether before the PTAB or before the courts).  I don’t think I got my wish.  Here’s why I feel this way.  Continue reading