Notice: The called constructor method for WP_Widget is deprecated since version 4.3.0! Use
instead. in /hermes/bosnaweb01a/b2262/ipw.patentba/public_html/wp/wp-includes/functions.php on line 3457

Notice: The called constructor method for WP_Widget is deprecated since version 4.3.0! Use
instead. in /hermes/bosnaweb01a/b2262/ipw.patentba/public_html/wp/wp-includes/functions.php on line 3457

Notice: The called constructor method for WP_Widget is deprecated since version 4.3.0! Use
instead. in /hermes/bosnaweb01a/b2262/ipw.patentba/public_html/wp/wp-includes/functions.php on line 3457
Patent Baristas

The Consequences of Pending Legislation and Proposed Alternatives

The Patent Act of 1790 granted patents to “he, she, or they” at a cost that even a pauper could afford.  At a time when women and blacks could not own property, both could own patents… and both did.  In 1809, Mary Kies became the first woman patentee for her invention related to weaving straw hats.  In 1821, Thomas L. Jennings became the first black patentee by inventing a method of dry scouring clothes.  During the 1800’s, some 3,300 women invented and patented 4,196 inventions and many made their full living by licensing their inventions.  The U.S. patent system leveled the field for all regardless of race, gender or economic status.

Largely because of broad-based participation and strong patent rights, iv the U.S. patent system has fueled the greatest economic expansion in the history of man, propelling America to lead the world in virtually every technology revolution, including the one we are in right now.  Great inventors like Eli Whitney, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, and others like Mary Kies and Thomas L. Jennings, inspired generations of inventors.  The rich history of the U.S. patent system, the value to our economy, and its promise to each of us is the heart and soul of America.

Today, the U.S. patent system is under a lethal legislative attack v encouraged by the lobbying and public relations efforts of large corporations. This attack is ostensibly directed at the problem of so-called “patent trolls” for the benefit of small businesses. Incredibly, data supporting this legislation are fabricated and secret, and then false conclusions based on that data are repeated so often that it appears true.  It is, however, not true.

Nonetheless, the anti-troll legislation currently rocketing through Congress will levy its damage on the patent system in general – disabling it for independent inventors and small businesses for the benefit of large corporations.   The legislation will damage the investment qualities of patents, which will make it impossible for the large majority of independent inventors and small businesses to recover any value of a patent.  If passed, current legislation will kill the patent system for most Americans.

To understand how this round of anti-troll legislation will cause such widespread damage, it is necessary to understand the economy of the U.S. patent system.

This paper is directed toward that understanding, along with understanding the so-called “patent troll” situation, and proposes legislation to fix the root of the problem.

See the entire paper here:  Proposed Legislation V2_DC_Final (pdf)

Paper submitted by:

  • Paul Morinville, Independent Inventor and Entrepreneur
  • Randy Landreneau, Founder of Independent Inventors of America
  • J. Scott Bechtel, CLP, MSIA, Managing Partner and CEO, AmiCOUR IP Group, LLC


  Print This Post Print This Post  

The Chisum Patent Academy announced that the next Advanced Patent Law Seminar will be held March 5-7, 2014 at the spectacular 21C Museum Hotel in easily-accessible Cincinnati, Ohio (more venue details below).

Seminar Coverage

On January 10, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in two important patent cases: Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies and Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments.Akamai concerns the problem of multi-actor infringement of method claims. Must the predicate of direct infringement by a single entity be established before inducing or contributory liability can be found? How should claims be drafted to avoid the multi-actor problem? Nautilus explores the viability of the Federal Circuit’s liberal “insolubly ambigous” standard for claim indefiniteness. We will examine Supreme Court precedent that sets forth a surprisingly different standard for claim definiteness. What is the interplay between the definiteness standard and patent claim interpretation? The Supreme Court’s interest in the Akamai and Nautilus cases signals important changes for patent litigation and drafting; we will explore them in detail at our Cincinnati seminar.

The Cincinnati seminar is  expected to include the following topics (and more):

  • Supreme Court and Federal Circuit En Banc Review: On Dec. 6, 2013, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in yet another section 101 case, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l. Will the murky “abstract idea” exception finally be clarified?
  • Active Inducement, Method and System Claims, and Joint Infringement: Cases including the Federal Circuit’s DSU (2006) en banc decision and the Supreme Court’s Global-Tech(2011) decision focus on the requirement of scienter (knowledge and/or intent) for indirect infringement, a requirement not applicable to direct infringement.
  • Injunctive Relief: The Apple v. Samsung Smartphone Wars. In 2012, the Federal Circuit rendered two important decisions on preliminary injunctions in the context of alleged infringement of Apple’s design and utility patents on smartphones and tablets.
  • Patent Practice Gone Wrong: Lessons from Patent Malpractice, Exceptional Case and Rule 11 Sanctions, and Inequitable Conduct Cases: In Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Ct. 1059 (2013), the Supreme Court held that state courts have subject matter jurisdiction over patent malpractice actions.

Syllabi from all past seminars are available here.


Located in the center of downtown Cincinnati at 609 Walnut Street, the 21C is a 156-room boutique hotel, contemporary art museum and cultural civic center.


The three-day Advanced Patent Law Seminars run from 9 am to 12 noon and 1 pm to 4 pm each day, for a total of 18 seminar hours.

The seminars are limited to ten (10) attendees. To maximize opportunities for discussion and questioning, we conduct the seminars in interactive, round-table style. All sessions are co-taught by Donald Chisum and Janice Mueller.


This seminar has been approved by the Supreme Court of Ohio Commission on Continuing Legal Education for 18.00 total CLE hours instruction.

Seminar Registration

The registration fee for the three-day Cincinnati 2014 seminar is $2,000 per person.

To register, click here.

  Print This Post Print This Post  

2013-2014_Symposium_DNA-programming-with-Title960-crop1The 2013-2014 JETLaw Symposium, Patents 101: Eligibility from Computer Code to Genetic Codes, examines the interaction of Section 101 and patent eligibility of software and DNA, as well as the implication of current jurisprudence on patent eligible subject matter. With the recent Supreme Court decision in Myriad and the number of cases in recent years addressing the patent eligibility of software, Section 101 has once again moved to the forefront of patent litigation.

Chief Judge Randall Rader of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will deliver the keynote address and will be joined at the Symposium by Judge Kent Jordan of the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, former USPTO Solicitor John Whealan, and leading scholars from across the country.

  • Date: Friday, January 24, 2014
  • Location: Vanderbilt Law School, 131 21st Ave. South, Nashville, TN 37203
  • Schedule of Events: The symposium schedule is available here. (Download )
  • Webcast: The symposium will be streamed here.
  • Submit Questions: Submit questions here, by 11:59 PM CST on Tuesday, Jan. 21st.
  Print This Post Print This Post  

Following our updates on the proposed change to the divisional deadline rule (Sept 2013 & Oct 2013), the EPO Administrative Council has now confirmed that this change will become law.

From 1 April 2014, the new divisional rule will allow applicants to file a divisional application from any pending European patent application.  This change takes the system back to its original form, before the much-maligned divisional deadlines came into force.

If you have a case pending before the EPO, for which the divisional deadline has expired but for which you might be interested in filing a divisional application, we strongly recommend that you keep it pending until 1 April 2014.

The Administrative Council also approved the change to the EPO supplementary search procedures, reported here.  Under the new rule, when the EPO carries out a supplementary search and finds lack of unity of invention, the EPO will give the applicant an opportunity to pay additional search fees, to have one or more of the remaining inventive concepts searched.  This rule change will also come into force on 1 April 2014.

From Dr. Matthew Barton, a UK Chartered Patent Attorney and European Patent Attorney at Forresters:

  Print This Post Print This Post  

Unless your invention is similar to a chemical compound or other, non-visual composition, you will need to do patent drawings. These drawings are not only beneficial in documenting your invention; they are a necessity in various stages of your patent application.

How Many Do You Need?

At least one patent drawing, or patent illustration, as it is sometimes known, is required to be included with your patent application. Experienced patent attorneys and inventors, however, know that sometimes a single drawing is not nearly enough. In fact, many patent applications include several sheets of patent drawings, each showing a different aspect of the invention, its uses, its component parts, and how it all works together. At the very least, your drawing should show all sides—top, bottom, sides and angles—of your invention, as well as its components.

How Detailed Should They Be?

For the greatest protection, as well as for increasing the understanding of viewers, your patent drawings should be as detailed as possible. Your patent lawyer will help add details to your application, but your patent drawings will add another level of security to your claims. While your initial drawings can be your own scribbles, the ones you formally submit with your application need to be on paper and forms designated by the U.S Patent Office. The Patent Office also has requirements regarding margins, types of detail included, and various technical details that all drawings must include.

Who Should Do Them?

It’s unlikely your patent attorney is also a patent illustrator, but he or she should be able to refer you to someone qualified in producing patent drawings. The cost of hiring a professional patent illustrator is relatively low, and well worth the price, even if you are an artist yourself. A professional will know what details need to be highlighted in your drawing, the proper fonts, the type of paper and margins and exactly what the Patent Office is looking for in your patent drawings.

Taking your invention from an idea to reality can seem astoundingly complex, but consultation with professionals during the various aspects will smooth your way. From patent attorneys, to professional patent searchers, to patent illustrators and beyond; get help on the details, and get your invention protected.

For over 35 years, Howard Cohn has practiced Intellectual Property Law, relating specifically to patents, trademarks, copyrights, and unfair competition. His law firm, Howard M. Cohn & Associates, specializes in the preparation and prosecution of patent and trademark applications both in the United States and worldwide.  For more information, please visit

  Print This Post Print This Post  

Inventors should be well aware of the fact that no matter how innovative their invention is, unless they patent it anybody else can claim it’s their idea and that you have come up with nothing worth the news.

Filing a patent for their invention is something that most inventors don’t know how to do. It implies presenting a series of documents in an accurate manner and many a time the forms are not easy to understand for ordinary individuals who are not acquainted with legal terms.

Even though it is highly advisable for all inventors willing to patent their invention to hire the services of a patent attorney, this step by step guide will introduce them in the process.

Perform A Patent Search

Performing a thorough patent search is the first step in the process of obtaining the patent for your invention. Throughout this step you will look into any other patent that has already been filed for inventions similar to yours. If somebody else has patented something similar to your invention then, unfortunately, you haven’t invented anything actually.

It is very important that you take enough time to do this step. If you do it carefully you can save yourself a lot of money and serious legal trouble for trying to patent something that already exists or infringing on other inventor’s rights.

If you don’t know how to do that by yourself, you can always hire a patent attorney to help you out. If your product is truly original, you’re ready to start with the patenting process in itself.

Fill Out The Patent Application

As it has already been said, the patent application is quite a complex process. If you misread something or do not fill in the information as expected, you will have to start all over again. Amongst the various documents you will be asked to fill in, we can mention: an overview statement of what you have invented, detailed and professional drawings of your invention, a virtual or physical prototype of your invention and the type of patent you are aiming at and why.

If the idea of presenting the prototype of your invention freaks you out, don’t worry! You can talk to the staff members of Idea Design Studio at 888.864.1870. It is an invention development company that helps inventors with achieving the virtual or physical prototype of their invention.

It is worth mentioning that filing a patent for an invention can put your patience to the test. The review process will definitely take some time. Perhaps you are asked to make some corrections on it or supply further information. You will need to comply with all these requirements if you want your request to patent your invention to be accepted.

If your application is approved, you may file for a patent. This is the right time to evaluate if all the costs involved in applying for a patent is something that you can afford financially or if it is really worth it.

Edward Lakatis run and writes for Idea Design Studio, an invention development and marketing company. He is passionate about all things related to invention, and helping other inventor’s realize their products potentials. More of Edward’s writing can be found on

  Print This Post Print This Post  

Audio conference to be held October 3, 2013

Section 101 of the patent statutes defines the conditions for patent-eligible subject matter. Historically, Section 101 issues have not been predominant in the life sciences. However, two recent Supreme Court cases have challenged those assumptions and clarified what scientific discoveries are eligible for patentability under Section 101. For example, Mayo v. Prometheus involved an analysis of patentability of tests applying correlations between drugs and metabolites.  Another recent case, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, involved patentability of isolated DNA sequences. In this audio conference presentation, the speaker discusses examples of both patent-eligible and non-patent eligible subject matter, and discusses strategies and implications for life sciences companies in the wake of these recent landmark Supreme Court cases.

This audio conference covers:

  • An overview of Section 101 and its importance to life sciences companies
  • Recent Supreme Court cases impacting life sciences companies
  • Why law of nature and purification or isolation of a naturally occurring material does not warrant patentability
  • When structural modifications to a naturally occurring material might make it patent-eligible
  • Why Section 101 is only a bare litmus for patentability; novelty and obviousness issues must be considered

About the speaker:

Jay Pattumudi is an experienced patent attorney with a graduate degree in biochemistry and molecular biology. His experience includes drafting patent applications as well as prosecuting those applications in such technological fields including biotechnology, chemical and pharmaceutical areas, mechanical matters, medical devices, and materials science. In addition, he has drafted opinions relating to non-infringement and invalidity in many of those fields. He has worked for a large general practice firm as well as patent boutique firms, including a life sciences patent boutique firm. Pattumudi has represented large companies, university start-ups, clients of foreign firms, and individuals.

More information here:

  Print This Post Print This Post  

From Dr. Matthew Barton, a UK Chartered Patent Attorney and European Patent Attorney at Forresters:

We have learnt that the EPO has made formal proposals to remove the current two-year time limit for filing divisionals.

At the present time applicants may only file voluntary divisionals within two years from the first examination report in a family of applications.  Mandatory divisionals due to a unity objection may be filed within two years from the unity objection.

The EPO proposes that applicants should again be able to file divisionals (and divisionals of divisionals) for as long as the original application is pending. The EPO also wants to increase the filing fee for second and subsequent generation divisionals.

The proposals aim for 1 April 2014 to formulate and introduce appropriate amended rules. Under the current proposals, applicants with a pending application (not granted, refused or abandoned) on 1 April 2014, can use it as the basis for a divisional application, even if the current two year limit has expired.


We recommend that you identify currently pending European patent applications where the divisional due date has expired, or will do before 1 April 2014.  If you are still interested in filing a divisional from any of these, you should slow prosecution as much as you can.  There are techniques enabling you to draw out EPO procedures, and we would be pleased to advise you on those.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

  Print This Post Print This Post