November's newsletter focuses on the latest information from LexisNexis IP to help you stay up-to-date with what's happening in Patent Law.
Not rendering correctly? View this email as a web page here.
Welcome to the November issue of the LexisNexis Intellectual Property InfoPro eNewsletter! Each month you'll receive product highlights, research tips, information on podcasts and webinars, and announcements from LexisNexis IP.
Businesses launching a new product need to know whether their product is infringing any patented designs before sales begin, and designers may be curious about whether their designs meet patentability requirements; a thorough design patent search can help answer both of those questions.
LexisNexis PatentAdvisor® gives you the ability to generate a report on your Patent Examiner. The report gives you a collection of annotated data and commentary revealing what is statistically “normal” for the examiner. A best practice for most firms is to generate examiner report statistics as soon as the patent application is assigned to an examiner.
The Alice/Mayo framework for determining patent eligibility has made it much more difficult to obtain patents in a variety of technology fields, but until recently the futuristic area of artificial intelligence related innovation was largely spared from dealing with the most difficult of these rejections.
A recently conducted review of patent eligibility rejections issued by patent examiners has identified a pivotal moment for artificial intelligence related innovation at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. This moment coincides with the August 2016 decision by the Federal Circuit in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Join Gene Quinn, Founder and President of IPWatchdog.com, for a discussion of patent eligibility, artificial intelligence, whyElectric Power Groupis being used by patent examiners to reject artificial intelligence patent claims, and how patent practitioners can attempt to respond to these patent eligibility rejections. Joining Gene will be Kate Gaudry, PhD, and Samuel Hayim, both attorneys with Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP.
Chris and Megan revisit their revolutionary metric for examiner behavior: ETA (Examiner Time Allocation). Although this new way of examining examiners has caught on quickly—and even inspired a few copycats—it has also sparked a lot of debate. In this episode, Chris answers some of the more common questions and addresses objections to the metric. The upshot is that ETA was designed to be robust to some common obstacles in measuring examiner behavior, such as junior examiner status and the transition to primary. Nonetheless, it is best used as an alarm system.
Having devoted years to developing examiner metrics that are both accurate and fair, Chris and Megan figured it made sense to ask for an examiner’s perspective on his own ranking. In this episode, former patent Examiner Josh Rudawitz joins Chris and Megan to discuss the rationale behind ETA, PatentAdvisor’s proprietary metric for examiner behavior. Josh weighs in on some of the reasons for ETA variations, both among and within art units.
The most reliable way to forecast Nintendo's future may be to look at its own patent prosecution history. History repeats itself, but sometimes we have to wait for technology to improve before we can imitate the past. That is the story of Nintendo's most recent innovation.