Ad
related to: how to challenge patent reexamination examples of medical terms in english
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
An inter partes review is used to challenge the patentability of one or more claims in a U.S. patent only on a ground that could be raised under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103 (non-obviousness), and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. [3]
Re-examination procedures: Post-grant administrative processes where the patent office re-evaluates the validity of a patent, often initiated by a third party or the patentee, sometimes without the adversarial format of opposition proceedings.
A request for a reexamination can be filed by anyone at any time during the period of enforceability of a patent. To request a reexamination, one must submit a "request for reexamination" which includes (1) a statement pointing out each "substantial new question of patentability based on prior patents and printed publications; (2) an identification and explanation for every claim for which ...
An opposition proceeding is an administrative process available under the patent and trademark law of many jurisdictions which allows third parties to formally challenge the validity of a pending patent application ("pre-grant opposition"), of a granted patent ("post-grant opposition"), or of a trademark.
A re-examination is a proceeding conducted by the patent office after the grant of a patent in which the validity of a patent is re-examined at the request of the patentee or third party, [17] as provided by the applicable law. [27] In some countries, a re-examination system is provided as an alternative or complement to the opposition system ...
The patent, however, may not be amended in such a manner that the amendment would lead to an extension of the protection conferred by the patent. [32] If amendments are made to the patent during the opposition proceedings, the patent (and the invention to which it relates) must meet the requirements of the EPC.
Patent misuse is a patent owner's improper use of patent rights, speaking very generally, to expand the scope or term of the patent. Examples of such patent misuse include forcing customers to agree to pay royalties on unpatented products or to pay royalties on an expired patent.
The case was decided in favor of MedImmune, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) declared the patent invalid. Genentech appealed the USPTO the ruling and the patent remained valid and enforceable until the appeal was concluded. Genentech prevailed during the reexamination of Cabilly II(2) by the USPTO (1).