Tag Archives: McKesson

En Banc Federal Circuit Eases Requirements For Induced Infringement Of Method Claims

On August 31, 2012, the Federal Circuit issued an en banc, per curiam opinion deciding both Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. and McKesson Technologies, Inc. v. Epic Systems Corp., which each relate to the requirements for establishing infringement when all of the steps of a method claim are not performed by a single … Continue reading this entry

Help The USPTO Reduce The Paperwork Burdens Of Patent Prosecution

As announced in a recent Federal Register Notice, the USPTO is soliciting public comments on its information collection requirements, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is an important opportunity to highlight requirements that are unnecessarily burdensome and that may go beyond requirements authorized by statute. While my main paperwork concerns relate to the … Continue reading this entry

USPTO Tweaks Patent Term Adjustment Rules To Accommodate McKesson-Type IDS Submissions

In a Federal Register Notice issued December 1, 2011, the USPTO issued a final rule that tweaks the patent term adjustment rules to permit applicants to promptly file McKesson-type Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs) without incurring a patent term adjustment deduction. The rule change took effect on December 1, 2011. (The Federal Register Notice indicates that … Continue reading this entry

Will The USPTO Use The New CCD Tool To Lessen The IDS Burden?

I know that the USPTO is busy studying the America Invents Act and drafting its implementing regulations, but it is disappointing that nothing has been done to address the inefficiencies of the current Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) rules. This inaction is even more egregious now that the Trilateral Patent Offices (EPO, JPO, USPTO) have launched … Continue reading this entry

Revisiting IDS Guidelines? While You're At It . . .

As I noted last week, the USPTO is revisiting its guidance on the Duty of Disclosure in the wake of the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Therasense. While the USPTO is reviewing the substantive requirements of the Duty of Disclosure, I hope that it also takes this opportunity to ease the procedural burdens associated with … Continue reading this entry

Revising U.S. Patent Regulations

If Director Kappos would grant you three wishes to revise the USPTO’s regulations (37 CFR), what would they be? This is not a fairy tale. Last week, the USPTO announced its “preliminary plan to review its existing significant regulations in response to the President’s Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” The USPTO is soliciting … Continue reading this entry

Beware The IDS Of March

The oracle told Julius Caesar to “beware the ides of March,” but patent practitioners have more cause for concern about the IDSs they will have to file in March. The McKesson Problem Federal Circuit decisions such as McKesson indicate that there can be a duty to disclose information from co-pendng U.S. applications, including Office Actions and cited … Continue reading this entry

USPTO Takes the MPEP to the Wikisphere

As the USPTO begins the process of updating the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) and the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP), it is inviting public comment on specific sections through new "online discussion tools." I am encouraged by the USPTO's interest in public input on these guidance materials, and hope that members of the patent community take advantage of this opportunity to provide meaningful comments and suggestions on the procedural and substantive guidance they provide. … Continue reading this entry

How Much Do IDS's Contribute to the USPTO's Patent Process Problems?

In a recent post on his blog, Director Kappos discussed the progress the USTPO has made towards improving patent processes. He reports that in fiscal year 2010 the USPTO "[e]ntered more than 2.9 million documents." Now, he doesn't categorize these documents, but I wonder how many include Information Disclosure Statements that submit copies of references or Office Actions that the Patent Office already has in the electronic files of other patent applications. Yes, I am referring to the McKesson IDS problem again! … Continue reading this entry

New Duty of Disclosure for European Patent Applications

European patent applications filed on or after January 1, 2011 will be subject to a new disclosure requirement designed to support international worksharing efforts. The new rule will require applicants to submit copies of search results received from the national patent office of the priority country (the Office of First Filing, or OFF). Failure to comply with … Continue reading this entry

Will The Federal Circuit's Therasense Decision Solve The McKesson Problem?

This week the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in its en banc rehearing of Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. As reflected in the en banc order, the court took this case en banc in order to reconsider—and hopefully reform—the law of inequitable conduct. The court’s decision could solve the McKesson problem and rein … Continue reading this entry

Next on the Agenda: Fixing the McKesson IDS Problem?

David Kappos has wrapped up his first year as Director of the USPTO. As noted in his blog, he has implemented a number of new programs and rolled out several new initiatives. Perhaps most importantly, he has fostered an atmosphere of cooperation between the USPTO and the stakeholder community. With that in mind, I again urge the … Continue reading this entry

Three Easy Solutions to the McKesson Problem

Federal Circuit decisions such as McKesson Information Solutions, Inc. v. Bridge Medical, Inc., 487 F.3d 897 (Fed. Cir. 2007), indicate that there can be a duty to disclose information from co-pendng U.S. applications, including Office Actions and cited references. However, the USPTO’s current IDS rules do not provide an efficient framework for citing information from a co-pending U.S. … Continue reading this entry