What are the consequences of not maintaining a valid biological deposit?
Failing to maintain a valid biological deposit can have serious consequences for a patent application or issued patent. According to MPEP 2407.03: “37 CFR 1.805(d) sets forth the Office position that the failure to make a replacement deposit in a case pending before the Office, for example a reissue or reexamination proceeding, where a deposit…
Read MoreWhat are the consequences of late disclosure of information to the USPTO?
Late disclosure of information to the USPTO can have several consequences: Reduced patent strength: The MPEP notes, The presumption of validity is generally strong when prior art was before and considered by the Office and weak when it was not. This suggests that late disclosure may weaken the patent’s presumption of validity. Potential patent term…
Read MoreWhat are the consequences of failing to replace a biological deposit promptly?
Failing to replace a biological deposit promptly can have serious consequences for a patent. The MPEP states: “Failure to diligently replace the deposit and promptly thereafter request a certificate of correction which meets the terms of 37 CFR 1.805(b) and 37 CFR 1.805(c) will cause the patent involved to be treated in any Office proceeding…
Read MoreWhat are the consequences of failing to disclose material information from copending applications?
What are the consequences of failing to disclose material information from copending applications? Failing to disclose material information from copending applications can have serious consequences. According to MPEP 2001.06(b): “The examiner, and by inference the applicant, is charged with knowledge of the existence of the copending application.” This means that if material information from a…
Read MoreCan a biological deposit be made after a patent has been granted?
No, a biological deposit cannot be made after a patent has been granted if no original deposit was made during the application process. The MPEP clearly states: “A request for a certificate of correction of a patent under 37 CFR 1.805(b) and 37 CFR 1.805(c) will not be granted where no original deposit was made…
Read MoreCan USPTO employees express opinions on patent validity or enforceability?
No, USPTO employees are not permitted to express opinions on patent validity or enforceability. According to MPEP 1701: “Public policy demands that every employee of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) refuse to express to any person any opinion as to the validity or invalidity of, or the patentability or unpatentability of any…
Read MoreWhat is the presumption of validity for patents?
Every issued patent is presumed to be valid under U.S. patent law. This presumption is explicitly stated in MPEP 1701: “Every patent is presumed to be valid. See 35 U.S.C. 282, first sentence.” This presumption of validity is a fundamental principle in patent law. It means that in any legal proceeding challenging a patent’s validity,…
Read MoreHow does MPEP 805 interpret the last sentence of 35 U.S.C. 121?
MPEP 805 provides a clear interpretation of the last sentence of 35 U.S.C. 121. The MPEP states: “In other words, under this statute, no patent can be held invalid for improper joinder of inventions claimed therein.” This interpretation emphasizes that the statute protects patents from being invalidated due to the inclusion of multiple inventions. It…
Read MoreWhat is the effect of improper joinder on patent validity?
According to MPEP 805, improper joinder of inventions does not affect the validity of a patent. This is based on the last sentence of 35 U.S.C. 121, which states: “the validity of a patent shall not be questioned for failure of the Director to require the application to be restricted to one invention.” In simpler…
Read MoreWhat does 35 U.S.C. 121 say about patent validity and restriction requirements?
35 U.S.C. 121 includes a crucial provision regarding patent validity and restriction requirements. As quoted in MPEP 805: “the validity of a patent shall not be questioned for failure of the Director to require the application to be restricted to one invention.” This means that even if the USPTO did not require an applicant to…
Read More