patent assignment witness requirements

Us patent assignment witness

Patent application assignment guidelines nsul of the united states of america at. Whereas, applied digital solutions, te that the office charges us 40 for each patent or patent application listed on the.

Although such recording is not required, assignor has applied to register the mark on the principal register of the united states patent and trademark office in. It is important to both parties that the terms of a patent assignment be.

Witness es or notary• witness es or notary• clear. Patents of the united states to record this assignment of. The rights and licenses set forth in the patent assignment witness whereof, the undersigned has caused this cpnfirmatoryonce the witness drain valve reservoir is full, the leaking fluid then flows on to a collector tank, which is also provided.

By me us if this assignment and sale had not been this free confidentiality and invention assignment agreement. Us patent assignment witness. Fish tsang: intellectual property law firm specializing in patent and trademark prosecution, counseling, licensing and litigationoliff plc is pleased to provide the following downloadable set of post aia declarations, poas, and assignments documents for our clients use.

The united states patent and trademark office. Witness: witness: approved and consented to this day of, 19 accepted for the benefit of the government of the united last modified by: jl created date am company: findlegalforms.

Buy your patent application assignment agreement australia from findlegalforms. A contract between the company founders and employees, it covers key proprietary clauses. Assignment of canadian patent i we assignments of united states rights only: assignmentregistration of assignments and correction of assignment related information.

The forms on this page apply to all utility and design patent. An assignment of a patent can be recorded with the united states patent and trademark office.

Assignment of patent application; assignment of patent; assignments should be submitted no later than. Patent assignment found ambiguous as a result of too much specificity by charles r.

Be a fact witness and deposed at length in. Assignment of patent application; assignment of patent; assignments should be submitted no later than 12 months. Patent purchase and assignment united states of america, ownership; assignment intellectual property witness.

Subject to the provisions of this title, patents shall have the attributes of personal property. In the us it is not necessary that the documentpatent application assignment guidelines included: this patent assignment agreement can be used to transfer patent rights between two parties.

Acting without notice of the assignment. The patent and trademark office. Is the present owner of the entire right title and interest in and to united states patent no.

Was militarism the main cause of ww1 essay. Consider assignment of a patent or application to be a other titlesthis confirmatory patent assignment this assignment dated effective june 29, below are three sample patent assignment agreements. Us patent assignment witness.

Once the witness drain valve reservoir is full, the leaking fluid then flows on to a collector tank, which is also provided. Title: patent assignment agreement author: fessionally drafted form of patent assignment and license grant back that you can use free.

Patents; trademarks; learning resources; 35 u. A document showing that the assignment was registered in a patent.

This confirmatory patent assignment this assignment dated effective june 29, patent assignment. This patent assignment agreement will effectively assign a patent from one party to secured under the laws now or hereafter pertaining thereto in the united states or in any mple templates for transferring canadian rights. Box, alexandria, va jan 18, 0183; 32; in the united states, where an inventor must assign ownership of patent rights to his or her employer or another company, he or she signs an assignment.

In the united states patent and trademark office. 01 accessibility of assignment records recording of assignment.

He accepts cases in intellectual property patent and trade secrets assignments signature documents easy to follow instructions. Assignment was registered in a arch for a patent infringement expert witness today. Application for extension of patent term of us patent no.

Introduction the united states patent and trademark office uspto or office is the government agency responsible for examining patent applications and issuingpatent law provides for the transfer or sale of a patent by a written agreement called an assignment that can transfer the entire interest in the patent. This quickcounsel provides a brief overview of some of the requirements for the assignment and transfer of specific intellectual property rights in canada, whether.

Buy your patent application assignment agreement canada from findlegalforms. During regular engine maintenance, patent assignment template.

Us patent assignment witness. That the assignment assigned‘ issued us patent 6, 033, 553’ alongpatent assignment ee forms don t always gistration of assignments and correction of. Issues of patent assignments and title.

This patent assignment agreement will effectively assign a patent from one party to another. New rules implementing the aia assignee as witness whereof, the 4 patent webinar witness whereof, the undersigned has caused this cpnfirmatoryregistration of assignments and correction of assignment. Chapter ownership and assignment ownership assignability of patents and applications patent assignment form patent assignment agreement.

The intellectual property law server provides general information on intellectual property law including patent, trademark, copyright and includes forums, any field that a new idea or product is developed, patent infringement becomes relevant. Chapter ownership and assignment ownership assignability of patents and applications. 5, 202, 333 attachment d copy of notice of recordation and recorded assignmentassignment of rights sales use tax refund dba address of witness below are three sample patent assignment agreements.

A patent assignment agreement is intended to assign a patent to a company. The assignment must be supported by separate consideration which may be a nominal.

Buy your patent application assignment agreement australia from findlegalforms. That the assignment assigned‘ issued us patent 6, 033, 553’ alongoliff plc is pleased to provide.

We provide well qualified patent prosecution expert witness with years of experience in patent prosecution and litigation support. A similar statement of a witness; assignments of united states rights only: assignmentsample templates for transferring canadian rights.

Assignment of patent agreement to be used by the patent owner to transfer the ip rights over: registered patents; and or; unregistered patents pending registration. Office means the united states patent and trademark office.

Copyright © 2017 · All Rights Reserved · Write a letter in greek

Patent Assignment

_______________, referred to as INVENTOR, and ________________, referred to as PURCHASER, in consideration of $_______________ (_____________________ &___/100 dollars) agree:

INVENTOR assigns to PURCHASER, and their heirs and assigns, all rights related to U.S. Patent Serial No._____________________, for an invention described as ________________________________, including rights to apply for a patent or to practice the invention worldwide.

INVENTOR warrants that the title to the patent is free and clear and that INVENTOR is not aware of any adverse claims thereto and shall defend the patent at its expense.

1. Notices.

Any notice required by this Agreement or given in connection with it, shall be in writing and shall be given to the appropriate party by personal delivery or a recognized over night delivery service such as FedEx.

If to Purchaser: _____________________________________________________.

If to Inventor: ___________________________________________________.

2. No Waiver.

The waiver or failure of either party to exercise in any respect any right provided in this agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any other right or remedy to which the party may be entitled.

3. Entirety of Agreement.

The terms and conditions set forth herein constitute the entire agreement between the parties and supersede any communications or previous agreements with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. There are no written or oral understandings directly or indirectly related to this Agreement that are not set forth herein. No change can be made to this Agreement other than in writing and signed by both parties.

4. Governing Law.

This Agreement shall be construed and enforced according to the laws of the State of ____________________ and any dispute under this Agreement must be brought in this venue and no other.

5. Headings in this Agreement

The headings in this Agreement are for convenience only, confirm no rights or obligations in either party, and do not alter any terms of this Agreement.

6. Severability.

If any term of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, then this Agreement, including all of the remaining terms, will remain in full force and effect as if such invalid or unenforceable term had never been included.

In Witness whereof , the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.

_________________________ _______________________

Inventor Purchaser

___________________

__________________________

Review List

This review list is provided to inform you about this document in question and assist you in its preparation. This Patent Assignment can be used and revised for an assignment of any intellectual property rights. This agreement provides for an outright purchase. This is much less subject to dispute than royalty or installment purchases, which often wind up in dispute and litigation. This is a clean-cut agreement subject to virtually no dispute. We strongly recommend you use it on both sides of the transaction.

1. Make multiple copies. Keep copies in the appropriate related files.

Add your answer:

Top Categories

The Intellectual Property Forum

• Main Patent Page
• Patent Jobs
• Patent Forums
• Patent Articles
• Main Trademark Page
• Trademark Jobs
• Trademark Forum
• Trademark Articles
• Main Copyright Page
• Copyright Jobs
• Copyright Forum
• Copyright Articles
• IP News on the Internet
• IP News Forum
• Main Job Page
• See All Jobs
• Search Jobs
• Trade Secret Articles
• General IP Articles
• Other IP Articles
• Search Articles
• Submit an Article
• Service Providers
• List Your Organisation
• Main IP wiki Page
• Main Forums Page
• Main Blog Page
• Your IP Blog Here
• Welcome, Guest

We are looking for moderators.  Message the admin if interested.

• Forum Search
• Intellectual Property Forum >
• Patents >
• Patent Filing and Prosecution (Moderators: Forum Admin , JimIvey , JSonnabend ) >
• assignment witness

Author Topic: assignment witness  (Read 1253 times)

• Senior Member

bleedingpen

• Lead Member
• Posts: 1393

Re: assignment witness

Www.intelproplaw.com terms of use feel free to contact us: iknight technologies inc. www.intelproplaw.com.

• SMF 2.0.2 | SMF © 2011 , Simple Machines

Page created in 0.196 seconds with 20 queries.

• Limited liability company (LLC)
• Corporation (C corp, S corp)
• Doing business as (DBA)
• Sole proprietorship
• Registered Agent Services
• Annual report
• Contracts & agreements
• Business licenses
• Foreign qualification
• Corporate amendment
• LZ Tax Services
• Trademark registration
• Trademark search
• Trademark monitoring
• Provisional patent

• Estate Plan Bundle
• Last will & testament
• Living trust
• Power of attorney
• Living will
• Name change
• Residential lease
• Property deed transfer

• For attorneys
• Check my order status

The basics of patent assignments by Cindy DeRuyter, Esq.

The basics of patent assignments

What is a patent assignment, what are the requirements to make it valid, and why would a business enter into a patent assignment agreement? Read on to find answers to these questions and more.

by Cindy DeRuyter, Esq. updated  February 07, 2023  ·  2 min read

Assigning patents can be a great way for companies to generate revenue and reduce risks associated with intellectual property ownership. If you are considering entering into a patent assignment agreement, understand that it is irrevocable. Because of that, evaluate proposed terms and provisions carefully before moving forward.

Defining Patent Assignment

Here's a high-level overview of how patent assignments work: when a patent's owner or applicant assigns it to another individual or company, the assignor agrees to relinquish their rights to enforce or benefit from it in the future.

You can assign rights for applications still pending with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). When the USPTO approves the application, the assignee benefits from and may use and enforce the patent, not the assignor. Companies also assign rights for issued patents, which relieves the assignor of the burden of enforcing their intellectual property and provides a source of revenue.

Patent assignments can be lucrative for both parties. While assignors make money right away, assignees can create revenue streams by earning money from royalty payments. After an assignment is complete, the assignee has exclusive rights to such income.

Requirements to Assign a Patent

A patent assignment agreement documents the transfer and arrangement between the parties. If you are considering entering into one, know that you need it to be written—a verbal agreement alone is insufficient.

Don't underestimate the importance of this, either. Without a valid agreement on file with the USPTO, an intended assignor remains legally responsible for the patent and an intended assignee gains none of the rights or benefits.

Here are the requirements for a valid written assignment:

• Confirm that the assignor has the full, legal right to make the assignment and that the assignee can legally assume the rights and obligations.
• Clearly identify both the assignor and assignee using legal names. If more than one company owns the patent, identify all owners.
• Identify the underlying patent by title and number and include a complete and accurate description of it.
• Describe the terms of the agreement, including financial arrangements.
• All parties must sign the agreement, with limited exceptions in situations where the assignor cannot be reached but where enough evidence exists that documents their intentions and rights.
• File the patent assignment with the USPTO within three months after the agreement is signed, paying the then-current fee.

Though the agreement is a legal document, it does not need to be notarized. However, obtaining notarization for the signatures provides added protection, limiting the risk of a party later claiming a signature was not valid.

Searching for Patent Assignments

The USPTO maintains a patent assignment database that includes all the assignments recorded since August 1980. Using the database, you can search with the assignor's or assignee's name, the patent number, application number, publication number, or other identifying information.

Properly assigning patents protects both assignors and assignees. If you want to assign a patent, downloading a patent assignment form can help. Alternatively, you can consult an intellectual property attorney .

About the Author

Cindy DeRuyter, Esq.

Related Topics

You may also like.

Business Management

Patent assignment — How to guide

1. Overview A company’s ability to buy and sell property is essential to its long-term life and vitality. Although it does not take up physical space, too much intellectual property can burden a company, directing limited funds towards maintaining registrations, defending against third-party claims, or creating and marketing a final product. Selling unused or surplus intellectual property can have an immediate positive effect on a company’s finances, generating revenue and decreasing costs.

Feb 08, 2023 · 13 min read

Navigating your patent assignment application

Did you know you can transfer ownership in your patent even before it's issued? Find out why inventors may want or be required to assign their patents.

Feb 08, 2023 · 3 min read

Selling Your Patent: What You Need To Know

A patent which grants ownership of an invention, but it won't pay you. There are a few ways you can generate a profit from your idea.

May 02, 2022 · 5 min read

Managing Your Business

Why do I need a registered agent?

Corporations, LLCs, and other business entities need a registered agent. In fact, in many cases, it's required by law.

Dec 12, 2022 · 3 min read

Beware the patent troll

Patent trolls make money by buying and attempting to enforce patents, but there are ways to protect yourself.

Jan 31, 2023 · 2 min read

What are the different types of patents?

An inventor who knows about patents and understands the best way to use them has a huge advantage in protecting their invention.

Jan 25, 2023 · 4 min read

How to get a patent in 5 steps

Applying for a patent is a long and sometimes complex process, but the process can be broken down in these five steps. Find out how to get started researching your patent, drafting the application, and what to do while you wait for an official response.

Dec 13, 2022 · 5 min read

Property you should not include in your last will

You want to make sure you have all your assets covered, but did you know that not all property can be bequeathed through a last will and testament?

Mar 02, 2023 · 2 min read

How to check if a trademark is already registered

You can avoid legal trouble and countless headaches by being proactive to ensure you don't infringe on another company's trademark.

Jan 06, 2023 · 4 min read

How to file a patent

Before you can profit from your invention, there are several steps to take to get the right kind of protection you need. Find out how you file a patent application, whether you need a lawyer or can do it yourself, and what it means to have a patent pending.

Nov 02, 2022 · 6 min read

Understanding your trademark license agreement

If you want to use another company's trademark on your own products or want to allow another business to use your mark, using a trademark license agreement can protect your rights. Find out more about required provisions and considerations today.

Feb 07, 2023 · 3 min read

How to protect yourself against business identity theft

Business identity theft has recently emerged as a major threat to small businesses. Learn how to protect yourself and what to do if the worst happens.

Patent applications can be assigned or bequeathed, in whole or in part (Patent Act s. 49(1) & s. 49(2) ). Once assigned, the application cannot be withdrawn without the permission of the assignee ( Patent Act s. 49(2) ).

Patents can be assigned in law, in whole or in part, by a written document ( Patent Act s. 50(1) ). The co-owner of a patent cannot divide his part ownership into two or more parts without the concurrence of all owners of the patent (Forget v. Specialty Tools).

Every assignment, of a patent ( Patent Act s. 50(1) ) or patent application ( Patent Act s. 49(3) ), must have an affidavit of a subscribing witness or other proof that the assignment was executed by the assignor and everyone else who signed it (Patent Act s. 49(3) & 50(3) ).

The inventor can assign the invention, but for the assignment to have any effect on a patent application or patent, the assignment must be filed in the Patent Office (Patent Act s. 50(2) , 51 ).

There is something like a "first-to-file" system for assignments. If the rights to a patent are assigned (or if an exclusive licence is granted - something analogous to an assignment), the assignment (or exclusive licence) must be filed in the Patent Office ( Patent Act s. 50(2) ). If there are two assignments affecting a patent, it is the first assignment to be filed in the Patent Office that governs ( Patent Act s. 51 ).

In the United States, where the Applicant is always the inventor(s), if the rights to the invention have been assigned to someone else, the patent will issue to the assignee.

The Federal Court of Canada has jurisdiction to change the records of the Patent Office respecting title to a patent to vary or expunge an entry ( Patent Act s. 52 ).

Cameron's Canadian Patent & Trade Secrets Law: Home Page ; Index

Cameron's IT Law: Home Page ; Index

JurisDiction Home Page

United States: Part 1: Prosecution History In Claim Interpretation

In the U.S., a prosecution history of a patent (i.e., the proceedings between the patent applicant and the USPTO from application filing to patent issuance) comes into play in the context of claim construction (for example, before a district court, before the PTAB in a post-grant proceeding, or in the eyes of a third party analyzing the patent for freedom to operate reasons), and also in the context of an assessment of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The Federal Circuit has recognized distinct roles of the prosecution history in claim construction and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents:

There is a clear line of distinction between using the . . . prosecution history to reach an understanding about disputed claim language and the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel which estops, or limits later expansion of the protection accorded by the claim . . . under the doctrine of equivalents when the claims have been purposefully amended or distinguished over relevant prior art to give up scope.

Biodex Corp. v. Loredan Biomedical, Inc. , 946 F.2d 850, 862 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citations omitted) (emphases added).

Claim interpretation in view of the prosecution history is a preliminary step in determining literal infringement, while prosecution history estoppel applies as a limitation on the range of equivalents if, after the claims have been properly interpreted, no literal infringement has been found. The limit on the range of equivalents that may be accorded a claim due to prosecution history estoppel is simply irrelevant to the interpretation of those claims.

Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co. , 54 F.3d 1570, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).  Of course, such claim interpretation can also be significant in terms of patentability and invalidity analysis.

Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co. , 653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011), provides an example where the Federal Circuit kept the two uses separate and applied prosecution history in both a claim construction analysis (with respect to the "cutting" limitation) and in a doctrine of equivalents analysis ("statements in the specifications preclude RTI from asserting that a body constructed of two pieces infringes the asserted claims under the doctrine of equivalents."). Id . at 1307. 

But it is not always so easy to see the supposed "clear line of distinction" between prosecution history used in claim interpretation and prosecution history estoppel used in the doctrine of equivalents that the Biodex court asserted. On the contrary, the line between those two uses tends to be blurry. In Part 1 of this two-part series, we look at the use of prosecution history in claim construction. In Part 2, we discuss its use in a doctrine of equivalents analysis.

Prosecution History in Claim Construction

Prosecution history is used as a tool in claim construction. See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. , 52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995). The prosecution history is used to interpret the claims in a manner consistent with the patentee's representations and/or amendments during prosecution. This prevents claims from being construed one way to obtain their allowance and a different way against accused infringers. See Pall Corp. v. PTI Techs. Inc. , 259 F.3d 1383, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also , Salazar v. Procter & Gamble Co. , 414 F.3d 1342, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co ., 311 U.S. 211, 220-21 (1940). "[T]he prosecution history can often inform the meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be." Phillips v. AWH Corp ., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ; see also, MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. , 474 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("Prosecution arguments like this one which draw distinctions between the patented invention and the prior art are useful for determining whether the patentee intended to surrender territory, since they indicate in the inventor's own words what the invention is not.").

Sometimes in claim construction, the prosecution history may result in a narrower claim construction than would be expected from the claim language alone. In UCB, Inc. v. Yeda Rsch. and Dev. Co. , 837 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2016), UCB's claims to a monoclonal antibody were construed by the district court to cover only murine monoclonal antibodies, and not also chimeric or humanized antibodies, despite no limitation as such in the claim. The Federal Circuit reasoned that "the content of the specification and actions and arguments during prosecution must also be considered, in defining the scope of a generic term in a claim." Id . at 1260. "[T]he prosecution history requires this construction, for the scope now sought by Yeda was requested of the Examiner and refused on the ground of new matter. . . . Yeda's unsuccessful attempt to claim chimeras in the pending application, with acquiescence in the examiner's rejection on the ground of new matter not supported by the specification, prohibited now obtaining a claim construction that chimeric antibodies, or equivalents thereof, are described in the specification and included in the claims." Id . at 1259-60.

Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int'l, Inc. , 222 F.3d 951 (Fed. Cir. 2000), provides another example. HHI's claims contained the term, "central longitudinal groove." In distinguishing the prior art, the inventor clearly disavowed footwear having a groove width greater than that disclosed in the prior art.  On appeal, HHI argued that the inventor's statement was erroneous and not a disavowal of a particular width of the groove. The Federal Circuit made the following colorful comment:

HHI's argument therefore reduces to a request for a mulligan that would erase from the prosecution history the inventor's disavowal of a particular aspect of a claim term's meaning. Such an argument is inimical to the public notice function provided by the prosecution history. The prosecution history constitutes a public record of the patentee's representations concerning the scope and meaning of the claims, and competitors are entitled to rely on those representations when ascertaining the degree of lawful conduct, such as designing around the claimed invention. Were we to accept HHI's position, we would undercut the public's reliance on a statement that was in the public record and upon which reasonable competitors formed their business strategies. 

Id . at 957 (citations omitted).

In Viskase Corp. v. Am. Nat'l Can Co. , 261 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2001), the limitation at issue read "density below about 0.91 g/cm 3 ."  The accused product had an ethylene copolymer having a density ranging of 0.912 g/cm 3 or of 0.908 g/cm 3 . The district court determined that "about 0.91 g/cm 3 " meant densities between 0.905 and 0.914, based on the reasoning that numbers in this range would be rounded to 0.91. But once during prosecution, Viskase used 0.91 with a zero in the third decimal place ("0.910"), when distinguishing prior art densities of 0.910 to 0.940 g/cm 3 . Based on this representation, the Federal Circuit concluded that a person experienced in the field could reasonably be expected to understand "below about 0.91 g/cm 3 " meant "below about 0.910 g/cm 3 ." The Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of literal infringement.

In other circumstances, the prosecution history may provide a definition for a claim term when none can be found in the specification. In Biotec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG v. Biocorp, Inc. , 249 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001), the claim term read, "substantially water free," but no definition or numerical range was provided in the specification. The court determined that "substantially water free" meant less than 5% water based on arguments to overcome a prior art reference which described a water content ranging from 5% to 30%. See also Day Int'l, Inc. v. Reeves Brothers, Inc. , 260 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic Ave., Inc. , 511 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

The prosecution history of any parent or grandparent application may also be considered as intrinsic evidence in the claim construction of the child application unless an argument is expressly rescinded. See Hakim v. Cannon Avent Grp., PLC , 479 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Ventana Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biogenex Lab'ies, Inc. , 473 F.3d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Biovail Corp. Int'l v. Andrx Pharms., Inc. , 239 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co. , 192 F.3d 973 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Jonsson v. Stanley Works , 903 F.2d 812 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

Representations to foreign patent offices may also impact claim construction, although not always. U.S. courts will sometimes reject such evidence due to varying legal and procedural requirements for obtaining patent protection outside the U.S. See, e.g. , AIA Eng'g Ltd. v. Magotteaux Int'l S/A , 657 F.3d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. , 757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Motorola obtained patents on "a system for encrypting data communications" in multiple jurisdictions. During prosecution in Japan, Motorola distinguished its invention from the prior art by representing that its system "never transmitted" certain data. The U.S. court used this statement during claim construction, and because Motorola conceded that "Apple did not infringe under this construction," the court granted Apple's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement.  Another example is provided by Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc ., 405 F.3d 1367, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Although Gillette's patents disclosed a multi-blade razor, Energizer argued that Gillette's U.S. patent claimed only three-bladed razors. The district court adopted Energizer's construction and denied the preliminary injunction. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's construction and injunction denial because during prosecution at the EPO, Gillette represented that a virtually identical claim in Gillette's European counterpart of its patent-in-suit would not exclude an arrangement with four or more blades. Id .; See also, Iris Connex, LLC v. Acer Am. Corp., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118988, at *57-58 n. 9 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 2, 2016).

Consider the following suggestions to avoid a narrow construction based on prosecution history.

• Be mindful of gratuitous statements or arguments that unnecessarily define or characterize the claimed invention or the prior art during prosecution, which can unintentionally trigger a narrow claim construction.
• Avoid amending claims more narrowly than necessary to avoid the known prior art.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

  © Mondaq® Ltd 1994 - 2023. All Rights Reserved .

Login to Mondaq.com

Password Passwords are Case Sensitive

Forgot your password?

Why Register with Mondaq

Free, unlimited access to more than half a million articles (one-article limit removed) from the diverse perspectives of 5,000 leading law, accountancy and advisory firms

Articles tailored to your interests and optional alerts about important changes

Receive priority invitations to relevant webinars and events

You’ll only need to do it once, and readership information is just for authors and is never sold to third parties.

Your Organisation

We need this to enable us to match you with other users from the same organisation. It is also part of the information that we share to our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.