Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Intellectual Property StrategistKickerSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

How Not to Draft a Patent Application

By Raymond Russell
June 27, 2008

Imagine the following hypothetical scenario. As a patent practitioner, you are given an invention disclosure and asked to prepare a utility application by the end of the week. Unfortunately, the inventor is out of town on business and is unavailable. The invention disclosure includes a one-page invention report, with a few paragraphs giving a basic description of the invention, which is a combination office heater/trash disposal device. The disclosure also describes when the product is expected to be on the market, and includes some sketches of a prototype. There is no description of similar products or related patents, and no examples of data demonstrating effectiveness. After conducting a short, informal search of the art, you draft the application. The specification describes the embodiment shown in the sketches, but the claims are broadly drafted to cover a variety of heater/trash disposal devices. The invention disclosure did not describe any advantages provided by the new device, so none are described in the application.

While the above hypothetical is certainly a less than ideal situation, it is not unusual. Patent drafters must often write a patent application based on minimal disclosure. Some practitioners take pride in their ability to do so. However, several recent landmark court cases have substantially increased the risk that a patent drafted in this manner will be unenforceable.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

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.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

CLE Shouldn't Be the Only Mandatory Training for Attorneys Image

Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.

Discovery of Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis May be Compelled Prior to a Markman Hearing Image

A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.