How does the USPTO prioritize different types of patent cases?
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has a specific prioritization system for different types of patent cases. According to MPEP 2261, the priority order is as follows: Reexamination proceedings and reissue applications involved in litigation Reexamination proceedings not involved in litigation All other cases The MPEP specifically states: “Any cases involved in litigation,…
Read MoreHow are court decisions in patent cases disseminated within the USPTO?
Court decisions in patent cases are disseminated within the USPTO through a structured process: The Office of the Solicitor forwards copies of recent court decisions with precedential opinions to the Office of the Commissioner for Patents. The Office of the Commissioner for Patents then forwards these opinions to TC Directors, the Office of Patent Training,…
Read MoreHow does licensing evidence support commercial success in patent cases?
How does licensing evidence support commercial success in patent cases? Licensing evidence can be a powerful indicator of commercial success in patent cases. The MPEP 716.03(b)(II) provides guidance on this: Licensing by itself could show commercial success if done with companies not related to the patentee, as long as the licensing clearly demonstrates that the…
Read MoreWhat factors can contribute to the presence of a long-felt need in patent cases?
The presence of a long-felt need in patent cases can be influenced by various factors beyond technical challenges. The MPEP highlights several considerations: Lack of interest: Sometimes, a long-felt need may persist due to insufficient interest in solving the problem, rather than technical limitations. Lack of appreciation: The potential or marketability of an invention may…
Read MoreCan attorney arguments replace evidence in patent cases?
No, attorney arguments cannot replace evidence in patent cases. The MPEP clearly states: “The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record.” (MPEP 716.01(c)) This principle is based on the case In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). Attorney statements regarding aspects such as unexpected…
Read More