Intellectual Property Attorneys - IP Lawyers

February 2009 Archives

China's legislature approved a revision of the country's Patent Law on December 29, 2008, claiming that the improvements will better protect the rights of patent holders due to more detailed and specific patent protection measures.


One of the important revisions to the Patent Law involvedĀ the adoption of the so-called "absolute novelty" standard that is applied internationally. Under this standard, patent examiners are required to consider public use evidence both inside and outside China when processing patent applications.

Further revisions included allowing several designs to apply to a patent, as long as the patent is owned by the same owner. Design patent regulations will also become stricter; for example designs such as soft drink bottles or wine labels will no longer be awarded protection. Furthermore, Chinese nationals will no longer have to file a patent application in China prior to filing for protection abroad.

Additionally, the amendment raised the penalty and damage payments in cases of patent infringement. The penalty was raised to 400 percent from 300 percent of the illicit profits, while the damage payment went up from RMB50,000 to RMB200,000 even if there was no profit from infringement. The courts may also fine the infringer between RMB10,000 to RMB1M in compensation when the damage cannot specifically identified.

Maier & Maier, PLLC is pleased to introduce an original video series providing guidance on issues in patent law, patent prosecution & litigation, and other intellectual property topics. We expect that this video series will be a regular feature on this blog. But first, a video introducing our firm, Maier & Maier, PLLC.

For more information, visit www.maierandmaier.com.

In a recent non-precedential opinion, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences rejected claims directed towards an isolated protein based on prior art references directed towards mouse cDNA sequences. The prior art disclosed the amino acid sequence encoded by the cDNA; however, it did not produce the resulting protein nor identify it's biological function.

The Board stated: "While we recognize that the prior art did not physically create the claimed proteins, the Federal Circuit in Donohue addressed this issue, noting "[it is not, however, necessary that an invention disclosed in a publication shall have actually been made in order to satisfy the enablement requirement." In re Donohue, 766 F.2d 53 1, 533 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ("[Anticipation does not require actual performance of suggestions in a disclosure. Rather, anticipation only requires that those suggestions be enabling to one of skill in the art"). *** The burden rests with the Appellants to establish that the prior art is not enabling." For further developments, stay tuned to www.maierandmaier.com

A petition for a writ of certiorari has recently been filed with the Supreme Court regarding the Federal Circuit's decision in In re Bilski. The petition presents the questions of whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that a process must be tied to a particular machine or apparatus or transform an article into a different state or thing, and whether that "machine-or-transformation" test contradicts Congressional intent that patents protect methods of doing business. Further briefs, including amici briefs are expected in the coming months. There is a modest chance that certiorari will be granted; if so the case would be heard during the next Term of Court. For further developments, stay tuned to maierandmaier.com