Patent Prosecution Update
January 2013

District Court Decision in Exelixis Changes Calculation of “B Delay” Patent Term Adjustment
On November 1, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been incorrectly calculating patent term adjustments (PTAs) for patent applications in which a Request for Continuation (RCE) was first filed more than three years after the application’s filing date.  In particular, the district court held that the USPTO’s interpretation of the patent term adjustment statute in 37 C.F.R. § 1.703(b)(1) contradicts the PTA statute, specifically 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(B), and such, is “not in accordance with law” and “in excess of [its] statutory . . . authority” under the Administrative Procedures Act.   More

Case Law Update on Obviousness: Common Sense and the “Simple” Invention
The 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007), significantly modified the test that courts employ to analyze the question of obviousness.  The Supreme Court criticized the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for too rigidly applying its “teaching-suggestion-motivation” test, for example, by often requiring that evidence of motivation to modify the prior art or to combine references must be found in published materials. Id at 1741.   More
PDF version

Rule Review
Congress Attempts to “Correct” and “Improve” the AIA and Patent Law

EPO Practice
Registered EU Designs: an Overview of a Valuable Tool to Protect IP in Europe

At the Federal Circuit
Incorporation by Reference, the Doctrine of Equivalents, and the Disclosure-Dedication Rule

Avoiding the “Fiscal Cliff” May Result in Corrections to the America Invents Act that Are More Than “Technical”

March Madness: Preparing for the U.S. Transition to a “First-Inventor-to-File” System

Don’t Throw Away Lab Notebooks: Record-Keeping Under AIA

A Closer Look at the Post-Ariad Written Description Requirement

IP Group of the Year: Finnegan

Finnegan Plays Key Role in $2.35B Technology Acquisition

In MVP: Finnegan’s Donald Dunner

DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is intended to convey general information only and should not be construed as a legal opinion or as legal advice. The firm disclaims liability for any errors or omissions and readers should not take any action that relies upon the information contained in this newsletter. You should consult your own lawyer concerning your own situation and any specific legal questions. This promotional newsletter does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship with our firm or with any of our attorneys.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact:

Eric P. Raciti, Editor-in-Chief
Rebecca Harker Duttry, Associate Editor
Elizabeth A. Doherty, Ph.D., Associate Editor

Washington, DC ▪ Atlanta, GA ▪ Boston, MA ▪ Palo Alto, CA ▪ Reston, VA ▪ Brussels ▪ Shanghai ▪ Taipei ▪ Tokyo
Copyright © 2013 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP | All rights reserved