June 29, 2020
Authored and Edited by Adriana L. Burgy; Thomas L. Irving; Stacy Lewis*
In the third and final part of this series, Assuring Quality U.S. Patents: Patent Owners’ Perspective, considerations for quality patent drafting are provided. The first part (interaction between attorney and inventor and preparing a quality patent) of the series can be found here and the second part (satisfying Section 112) of the series can be found here.
A. Are subjective evaluations presented as fact? Are assertions supported by science?
B. Do the inventors or persons with a Rule 56 duty know of any prior art, including patents, publications, and possible on-sale or public use information?
C. Do the inventors have any articles or publications on the subject matter of the invention?
D. Were all the experiments described performed as described?
E. Are there experiments and/or experiment details that were not included in the specification?
F. Are there undisclosed data? undisclosed documents?
G. Is there information in the files of those having a Rule 56 duty that is inconsistent with those data submitted? Arguments made in support of patentability?
H. Do they know of any related applications? Office Actions in any related applications? related patents? any litigation on the related patents?
I. Is there any correspondence, reports, or notes of telephone calls between the patent owner and third parties, such as potential licensors?
J. Are there invalidity and/or unpatentability search reports from patent authorities, inventors, patent searchers of the patentee, and/ or private patent searchers outside the patent owner relating to the subject matter?
K. Are there any documents related to world-wide regulatory filings, including, for example, in the U.S., the IND and NDA.
L. Be very careful with declarations submitted for establishing patentability.
*Stacy Lewis is a Law Clerk at Finnegan
Copyright © 2020 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.