by James H. Ortega
The European Patent Organization has been developing a unified European Union (EU) patent system, which will include both a unitary EU patent, issued from the European Patent Office (EPO), as well as a Unified Patent Court (UPC) system for harmonized enforcement of unitary EU patents. Although a specific date for implementation of the proposed UPC system has not yet been established, the unitary patent process will go into effect January 14, 2014, with the UPC system likely following sometime in later 2014 or 2015. Thus, despite the complaints regarding both of the new systems, the upcoming implementation of at least the unitary EU patent system requires patent practitioners involved in European patent practice to become familiar with the system in order to properly advise their clients.
by Colin P. Cahoon
Often overlooked when discussing the myriad changes wrought by the America Invents Act (AIA), 35 USC Section 102(b)(2)(C) deserves close scrutiny by any company that hires potential inventors or that enters into joint development agreements with third parties. This new provision created by the AIA provides such companies with a powerful tool for removing potentially harmful prior art from consideration by the USPTO against patent applications that such companies might file in the future. To work properly, though, 102(b)(2)(C) needs to be considered when negotiating a joint development agreement and when first hiring any new potential inventor employees.
by Gregory Perrone
This past Spring, in CLS Bank International, CLS Services Ltd. v. Alice Corp, Pty Ltd. 2011-1301 (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2013), a splintered en banc panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated its three-member panel’s reversal of the district court’s judgment and affirmed a grant of summary judgment of invalidity.
The en banc panel held that a patent claiming a computerized system and methods for eliminating settlement risk are not eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. Section 101. While the panel’s six opinions and 127 pages provide a menagerie of commentary on why subject matter may or may not be patent eligible, little guidance is offered to inventors, patent counsel or the courts on how to determine whether subject matter is patentable.