<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel>
<title>PLI Patent Practice Center RSS feed</title>
<link>http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/</link>
<description>PLI Patent Blog</description>
<language>EN</language>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Why Software is Not Math]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[It is impossible to argue that software code does not employ mathematical influences, because it does. I think Dijkstra's explanation that a "programmer applies mathematical techniques" is completely true and accurate. Having said this, the fact that mathematical techniques are employed does not as a matter of fact mean that software is mathematical, at least not insofar as the US patent laws are concerned. Under the US patent laws you cannot receive a patent that covers a mathematical equation or a law of nature. You can certainly use mathematical equations and laws of nature as the building blocks to create something that is new and nonobvious that is patentable. So even if software used mathematical equations there would be no prohibition against the patenting of software under a true and correct reading of the US patent laws.]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:29:00 EDT</pubDate>
<category>Gene Quinn, software patents, bilski</category>
<link>http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&amp;id=397</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&amp;id=397</guid></item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Kuddos to Article One Partners]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[In an article titled Reexamination Would Stop Patent Trolls, I criticized the recently announced plan of Article One Partners, who will pay individuals for prior art they come up with if they believe the prior art could be used to invalid patent claims. Since that time I have had a number of detailed conversations with Cheryl Milone, the President of Article One Partners. I have been honest with her that I am not sure the way that Article One is pursuing the problem will ultimately be successful because while offering a bounty for the discovery of invalidating prior art seems like a great idea, it is not a worthwhile reward for those who are professionals because of the costs associated with undertaking a search. Cheryl has told me that the idea of Article One is to provide a reward for those who have particular knowledge and make it worthwhile for them to come forward. So the original plan was to look for non-patent prior art, figuring that if someone knew what was necessary to invalidate a patent then they might just have non-patent prior art in a file or be able to find it quickly. It is an interesting concept, and one that I don't think this alone will solve the problem of bad patents, but it certainly does seem worthwhile. It is unlikely that any one particular solution will be the silver bullet, so why not give this a try as a part of broader efforts to reform the patent system?]]></description>
<pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:42:00 EDT</pubDate>
<category>Gene Quinn, patent trolls, reexamination</category>
<link>http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&amp;id=396</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&amp;id=396</guid></item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Congress Should Enact Rule 56 Immediately]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[one thing that could significantly help right away would be if Congress would define what the duty of disclosure is that is owed by those substantively involved in the prosecution of a patent. Yes, the USPTO has Rule 56, which attempts to define the duty and obligation, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit does not feel that it is bound by the definition of the duty owed to the Patent Office, even though Rule 56 was set forth by the Patent Office. Apparently the judges on the Federal Circuit feel that they know better than the Patent Office. The trouble is this leads to patent attorneys being unwilling to say much of anything useful to an examiner for fear that what they say would open the door to a charge of inequitable conduct, which would render any patent and potentially any related patent unenforceable. ]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:21:00 EDT</pubDate>
<category>Gene Quinn, uspto, patent office, federal circuit, congress, patent reform</category>
<link>http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&amp;id=395</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&amp;id=395</guid></item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Former PTO Leaders Criticize Dudas]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[It would seem that everything I have been writing over the last several years is finally being echoed by a list of former PTO Leaders, including Gerald Mossinghoff, Nick Godici and Bruce Lehman.  For more see <b><a href="http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1208/121208cdam1.htm">Former patent officials say backlog should become a top priority</b></a>.]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:16:00 EDT</pubDate>
<category>Gene Quinn, patent office, uspto</category>
<link>http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&amp;id=391</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&amp;id=391</guid></item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Fixing the USPTO: Part 1]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[As of the end of Fiscal Year 2008 there are 1,208,076 patent applications still pending at the Patent Office. At the end of Fiscal Year 1997 the number of pending applications left over was only 275,295, so over the last 11 years there has been a 439% increase in the number of pending applications left over that could not be resolved. That is alarming. Each year since 1997 this number has gone up, first going over the 1 million mark in 2006. Luckily, there are a number of things that can be done immediately that would fix this crisis. Unfortunately, none of the proposals over the last few years by the Dudas Administration are calculated to succeed.]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:33:00 EDT</pubDate>
<category>Gene Quinn, patent office, uspto, patent search, patent litigation</category>
<link>http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&amp;id=390</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&amp;id=390</guid></item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Stanford Launches IP Litigation Database]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[On Monday, December 8, 2008, the Law, Science & Technology Program at Stanford Law School launched the Stanford Intellectual Property Litigation Clearinghouse (IPLC), a unique online database that offers comprehensive information about intellectual property disputes within the United States. This publicly available, online research tool will enable scholars, policymakers, lawyers, judges, and journalists to review real-time data about IP legal disputes that have been filed across the country, and ultimately to analyze the system that regulates patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets.]]></description>
<pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 13:08:00 EDT</pubDate>
<category>Gene Quinn, patent litigation</category>
<link>http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&amp;id=389</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&amp;id=389</guid></item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Just Say NO to the Appeals Rules]]></title>
<description><![CDATA[The United States Patent & Trademark Office finally posted on its website an announcement that the new appeals rules that were to go into effect today, December 10, 2008, have been held up and will not go into effect. While the USPTO has said we can follow the new rules if we want, now is not the time to start using rules that we didn't want in the first place.  Like a good friend of mine says "no good deed goes unpunished." Just say NO to the new appeal rules, at least as long as you have that option.]]></description>
<pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:09:00 EDT</pubDate>
<category>Gene Quinn, uspto, patent office, appeals, omb</category>
<link>http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&amp;id=388</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pli.edu/patentcenter/blog.asp?view=plink&amp;id=388</guid></item>
</channel></rss>
