Search

IV. RESULTS This Part turns to testing the key hypotheses presented in Part II above. Generally, these hypotheses set forth that initial hiring conditions at the PTO impact the granting [...]

Abstract Concerns regarding low-quality patents and inconsistent decisions prompted Congress to enact the first major patent reform act in over sixty years and likewise spurred the Supreme Court to take [...]

As an alternative to civil litigation, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) has created three trial-like procedures for challenging US patents at the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO): (1) [...]

USPTO Issues New Rules for Patent Office Trials Completing a rulemaking cycle that began last August, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a final set of rules [...]

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction I. The Current State of Trademark Enforcement A. Pre-Litigation Policing Options B. Litigation Policing Options C. Shortcomings of Current Policing Options II. The PTO's Response to [...]

The US?Patent and Trademark Office should ensure that patents with a high potential social cost be subjected to greater scrutiny during the patent process.? Prosecution history estoppel can help the PTO determine which patents are likely to carry a high cost.

A patent application must contain only one "independent and distinct" invention. The author examines how this phrase has been interpreted by courts and the US Patent and Trademark Office.

The author outlines the reexamination process available in order to defend against patent infringement suits by applying for reexamination of the original patent. This is a valuable tool for smaller entities which cannot afford expensive litigation.

The author examines the role of the Noerr/Pennington doctrine in patent law and concludes that the use of the doctrine may fade as the volume of patent applications increases and the validity of more patents is called into question.

Patent infringement actions are often carried out simultaneously before the International Trade Commission or district court and the Patent and Trademark Office. The author analyzes this situation and suggests possible courses of action for companies involved in such actions.

The authors present an analytical framework for responding to rejections of prior art claims before the US Patent & Trademark Office.

The author contends that the US Patent and Trademark Office could improve its patent examination process by conducting examinations as administrative trials and by creating a convertible low end patent which would be subject to limited examination.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and its principal reviewing court, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, issued important rulings in trademark law in 1998. Included was the ruling that resolution of likelihood of confusion claims must specify the du Pont factors relied upon. Other issues dealt with include the elements necessary to maintain an opposition, abandonment through nonuse, the false suggestion of connection, and when a mark is merely descriptive.

The doctrine of official notice may be involved when the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) rejects a patent application. Official notice has two rationales: to promote administrative efficiency and to take advantage of the PTO's technical expertise. Official notice may be taken either of widely notorious facts or of facts capable of prompt and indisputable verification. PTO Examiners should refrain from relying on official notice unless applicants have been forewarned.