If Patent Reform Is Meant to Starve Patent Trolls, Why Is It Feeding Them Instead?
Our latest article, just published on IP Watchdog, examines one of the great ironies of patent reform thus far – it is feeding NPE business.
Our latest article, just published on IP Watchdog, examines one of the great ironies of patent reform thus far – it is feeding NPE business.
As Google’s recent AIA petition shows, most software technology, if distilled to its most basic and general essence, can be equated to a ubiquitous, previously known practice in an attempt to create 101 problems under Alice. Let’s hope judges give due consideration to the specifics of the patents before them.
http://www.law360.com/articles/565151/google-seeks-aia-review-of-simpleair-patent-in-85m-case
Our latest article – just published – asks why has the Supreme Court interjected issues of novelty/obviousness where they don’t belong, i.e., the analysis of what constitutes patentable subject matter?
http://www.ipprotheinternet.com/ipprotheinternet/IPProTheInternet_issue_45.pdf#page=10
By Fatih Ozluturk:
In another blog entry we listed the conditions for an invention to be patentable. There are also specific things that the law excludes from patentable subject matter. It is important to know these.
By Fatih Ozluturk:
For patents filed on or after June 8, 1995, the protection lasts for 20 years from the filing date of the earliest U.S. application to which priority is claimed. Domestic priority to one or more provisional application is not considered
By Fatih Ozluturk:
Section 101 of the U.S. Patent Act sets forth the general requirements for a utility patent: “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvements thereof, may
By Fatih Ozluturk:
A patent, trademark, copyright and trade secret are separate forms of intellectual property and are meant to protect different things.
Patent
A patent protects any new, nonobvious and useful invention.
An invention may include