Patents history prior

A considerable part of a patent attorney s practice may be focused on providing legal opinions regarding the scope and validity of third party patents to determine whether there is freedom to operate for a particular product, or whether the product would infringe another party s patent. In the biotechnology industry, this may include an analysis of patents relating to the synthesis of a product, the product itself, and formulations of the product, as well as its method of use. This task also involves an analysis of prosecution histories of other patents, relevant prior art, and consideration of whether the patent of interest satisfies the statutory requirements for patentability. 

Case History Takeda, in an attempt to protect Actos from generic competition, sued various generic pharmaceutical manufacturers (collectively Alphapharm) for infringing the claims of U.S. Patent No. 4,687,777 ( 777). At trial, Alphapharm asserted that the compounds covered by the claims of the 777 patent were obvious in view of a prior art compound. The district court found the compounds covered by the claims of the 777... 

The resume of the individual, documenting education, prior job history, publications, presentations, patents, attendance at technical courses, and memberships in technical organizations. The resume must be updated during the course of employment to document additional training and changes in responsibilities. This document should be a brief history of... 

Prosecution of this patent was in fact quite lengthy, the original application dating from August 1979, and involved questions of similarities and differences in crystalline modifications. (See Kalipharma v. Bristol-Myers 1989 for details of the history of the prosecution of the patent application.) The prior art included a 1973 patent (U.S. 

The basic effect of the doctrine of equivalents is to allow the patent owner to expand the scope of protection afforded by the literal language of the claims. However, the doctrine of equivalents does not allow the patent owner to expand the scope of the claims without restriction. The ability of the patent owner to expand the scope of the patent claims is restrained by the prior art and also by the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel. 

The Kolbe-Schmitt reaction[l] has long history related with aspirin and has been a name reaction used for the longest period in an industrial process. While the demand for the manufacturing aromatic hydroxycarboxyhc acids is still successively coming out today with a number of patents, the mechanism of the reaction has remained unsolved. The present nmr spectroscopic studies have proved a [substrate CO2] complex or an intermediate prior to the formation of carboxyhc acids. Another puzzling question about the unstable complex even to moisture, is why the carboxylation of polyhydroxybenzenes, such as resorcinol, should proceed in aqueous solutions. Herein also reported are kinetic studies on the carboxylation of resorcinol in aqueous solutions of alkali hydrogencarbonates. 

There have been, however, expressed other views and claims as to the discovery of FIA and they, besides offering interesting reading [216, 607, 1056, 1352], confirm that the history of human endeavour, and scientific discoveries in particular, tells many stories, often confused by conflicting claims. Valcarcel and Luque de Castro have in Chapter 2 of their FIA monograph [665] reviewed material pertinent to this topic published prior to 1975. The reason for selecting this year is that the principles and experiments described in the first FIA publication were summarized in an earlier Danish Patent Application filed in September 1974 [1]. 

If you are on the defendant side, you list reasons why the patent is invalid, for example, it was obvious, not novel, not useful, invented earlier as described in prior art (anticipated), the specification does not have an adequate description of how to implement the invention (lack of enablement), the patent applicant held back important information that he should have provided to the patent examiner and did not tell all (inequitable conduct), or the file history describes how the applicant restricted the meaning of the claims during patent prosecution. Not only the listed reasons above, but in addition that you have actually tested the medical device, and it does not infringe the patent because it does not contain every element of the claim or imder the doctrine of equivalents. 

Carbon fibers, thought by many to be a relatively new material, actually have a long history as evidenced by the issuance of the first patent for incandescent electric lamp filaments (carbon fibers). The patent was issued to Thomas Edison in 1892. Hiram Maxim (the inventor of the machine gun, among other things) was issued a process patent for carbon fibers in 1899. Prior to the 1950s, these fibers had marginal strength and were used primarily for their electrical properties. 

---