Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> Patently Obvious
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Patent Law
: Patently ObviousPTO: Some Claim & Continuation Rules will Not be Effective Until After Injunction is Lifted
By Dennis Crouch, Esq.
"USPTO is identifying the applicability date of those regulatory provisions relating to applications containing patentably indistinct claims which are enjoined in Tafas v. Dudas, 530 F. Supp. 2d 786 (E.D. Va. 2008). Should the injunction be lifted, those regulations will apply only to applications filed on or after any new effective date that would be published by the USPTO in the future.
. . . .
The USPTO anticipates that it will be some time before the litigation concerning the Claims and Continuations Final Rule is finally resolved. The USPTO is concerned that some applicants may be taking preparatory action anticipating the new requirements of 37 CFR 1.78(f)(1) and (2), as added by the Claims and Continuations Final Rule, due to the possibility that the injunction by the district court in Tafas will be removed. The purpose of this notice is to aid applicants who might otherwise feel the need to take such preparatory actions by identifying the applicability date of the provisions of 37 CFR 1.78(f) in the event that the injunction by the district court in Tafas is removed. Specifically, the changes in 37 CFR 1.78(f)(1) and (f)(2) will only apply to applications filed on or after any new effective date that would be published by the USPTO after the removal of the injunction. Thus, in the event the referenced injunction is lifted, applicants will only need to comply with the identification requirements of 37 CFR 1.78(f)(1) in applications having an actual filing date on or after this new effective date. Likewise applicants will only have to identify other commonly owned applications that satisfy the conditions set forth in 37 CFR 1.78(f)(1)(i) in applications that have a filing date on or after this new effective date. Similarly, the rebuttable presumption of 37 CFR 1.78(f)(2) will only apply to applications having an actual filing date on or after the effective date. Furthermore, the rebuttable presumption will only exist with respect to an application that satisfies the conditions set forth in 37 CFR 1.78(f)(2)(i) and also has a filing date on or after this new effective date.
Full post as published by Patently Obvious on August 07, 2008 (boomark / email).
Discouraging Union Organizers
Strict work place rules
Ladder Accident Injury Claims
Were you or a loved one injured in a ladder accident?
VA Sets New Benefit Rules for Agent Orange-Related Ilnesses
Agent Orange-Related Ilnesses VA Sets New Benefit Rules
Miralus Inc.
alleging HeadOn is not safe or effective.
AIG Settles Injury Claim
for $18 Million
Failure-to-accommodate claim yields $1.82M award
$1.82 Million Awarded in Employment Lawsuit
Recovery Claim
Florida Insurance Guarantee Association agrees to pay $14 million settlement to Home Solutions of America for construction services.

District Court Blocks PTO New Continuation & Claim Rules
USPTO Clarification: Continuation Rules Not Retroactive, Despite Appeal
Motions for summary judgment in claim and continuation rules case taken under advisement
Hearing on summary judgment motions in claim and continuation rules case this morning
Briefs Flying In Patent Office Appeal of Continuation Rules
Tafas v. Dudas: The Continuation Wars







