Follow Us
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Many parties obtain U.S. patents every year. Sometimes there are errors or deficiencies in these patents. Many minor errors may be corrected by means of a certificate of correction issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). But more serious errors, and even some things that one may not think of as being “errors,” may be corrected by means of filing a reissue application. According to statute:
“Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partially inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the director [of the USPTO] shall … reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.” See, 35 U.S.C. Section 251(a).
*May exclude premium content
Protecting a Trademark Licensor’s Rights In Its Licensee’s Bankruptcy Case
By Alfred S. Lurey
A recent bankruptcy case from the District of Delaware underscores the need for a trademark licensor to be alert to filings made in its licensee’s bankruptcy case that may require prompt action by the licensor to protect its valuable rights under a license agreement.
By Dyan Finguerra-DuCharme and Abla Belhachmi
The metaverse, an immersive virtual experience building on the Internet and the physical world, has become a prominent force in branding and marketing for companies struggling to keep up in an ever so globalized economy. Parallel to this digital expansion has been a surge of intellectual property issues.
By Jeffrey S. Ginsberg and Abhishek Bapna
Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Decision That an Artificial Intelligence Software System Cannot Be Listed as an Inventor on a Patent Application
Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Partial Award of Attorney’s Fees
Federal Circuit Analyzes Specification and Prosecution History Claim Language Usage
By Matthew Siegal
University of Massachusetts v. L’Oréal
Absent an express disclaimer or special definition of how a term is to be interpreted, it can be frustrating to get a court to reject the plain and ordinary meaning of claim language read in a vacuum, based on the subtleties of how a term is used in a patent or its prosecution history.
Copyright © ALM Global, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
