Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In January 2006, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ('USPTO' or the 'Office') published a proposed rule revising patent practice with respect to continued examination filings, patent applications with patentably-indistinct claims, and examination of claims in patent applications. Following the submission of written comments and public meetings, the Office published its final rule on Aug. 21, 2007. 72 Fed. Reg. 46716 (Aug. 21, 2007) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 1). The final rule differs in many respects from the originally proposed rule, and the final rule includes a number of significant changes to patent practice.
As discussed in detail in this two-part series, the final rule places a number of restrictions on various aspects of patent practice. This first installment examines the final rule as it relates to continued examination filings. The second installment, then, will examine the final rule as it relates to examination of claims, applications with patentably-indistinct claims, second-action final practice, and refund of excess-claim fees.
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.