37 CFR 1.141 - Different inventions in one national application
| Cite as | 37 CFR 1.141 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
31 practice notes
-
Patent cases: Patent business goals; implementation,
...1.111); (13) Changing amendment practice to replacement by paragraphs/ claims (37 CFR 1.121); (14) Providing for presumptive elections (37 CFR 1.141); (15) Creating a rocket docket for design applications (37 CFR (16) Requiring identification of broadening in a reissue application (37 CFR 1......
-
Front Row Techs., LLC v. NBA Media Ventures, LLC, No. CIV 10–0433 JB/SCY
...to claim only one 'independent and distinct invention' "—to a judicial validity determination. 2015 WL 8082402, at *5 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 1.141 ). The district court rejected this attempt, explaining that a separate judicial opinion invalidating a single claim in a patent does not automati......
-
R2 Medical Systems, Inc. v. Katecho, Inc., No. 94 C 3131.
...may issue a restriction requiring the applicant to elect a single disclosed species and those claims that read upon that species. 37 C.F.R. § 1.141. Although the applicant may contest ("traverse") the restriction and try to convince the patent examiner that the identified separate species d......
-
Attorney-Client Privilege for In-House Counsel
...35 U.S.C. § 121, as “ or ” is an invalid attempt at “interpretative” rule making, because changing “and” (in 35 U.S.C. § 121 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.141(a)) to “or” (in MPEP § 802.01) cannot possibly be a valid exercise of “interpretative” authority. There are a host of similar provisions in the ......
Request a trial to view additional results
20 cases
-
R2 Medical Systems, Inc. v. Katecho, Inc., No. 94 C 3131.
...may issue a restriction requiring the applicant to elect a single disclosed species and those claims that read upon that species. 37 C.F.R. § 1.141. Although the applicant may contest ("traverse") the restriction and try to convince the patent examiner that the identified separate......
-
Front Row Techs., LLC v. NBA Media Ventures, LLC, No. CIV 10–0433 JB/SCY
...to claim only one 'independent and distinct invention' "—to a judicial validity determination. 2015 WL 8082402, at *5 (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 1.141 ). The district court rejected this attempt, explaining that a separate judicial opinion invalidating a single claim in a patent does not aut......
-
Acme Highway Products Corp. v. DS Brown Company, No. 19910
...application to the device, and, apparently, abandoned the claims relating to the method of installing it. See 35 U.S.C. § 116 (1964); 37 C.F.R. § 1.141, et seq. Thereafter, the application was amended four times, new claims were added, and old ones modified. On April 8, 1964, in its final p......
-
Plastilite Corporation v. Airlite Plastics Co., Civ. No. 73-0-149.
...than that stated in the independent claim. 37 C.F.R. § 1.75. In fact, two or more inventions may not be claimed in the same patent. 37 C.F.R. § 1.141. Even though a patent is valid and infringed, a Court should deny recovery where it is shown that enforcement would strongly conflict with th......
Request a trial to view additional results
5 firm's commentaries
-
Protection of Designs in the United States
...manufacture, use or sale and each would be patentable over the other if the other were prior art (and the only prior art) against it. [77] 37 CFR 1.141. [78] 37 CFR [79] Pacific Coast Marine Windshields Ltd. v. Malibu Boats, LLC,739 F.3d 694,109 USPQ2d. 1225 (2014). [80]Warner- Jenkinson Co......
-
Opportunity to Reform Existing PTO Regulations and Ease Patent Application Paperwork Burden
...• Are there MPEP requirements that go above fair interpretation of the statute or 37 C.F.R.? For example, both 35 U.S.C. § 121 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.141 authorize the PTO to restrict "independent and distinct" inventions, but MPEP Chapter 800 encourages examiners to restrict inventions that are......
-
Oracle v. Google: The Battle Over Android Continues As Google Seeks To Exclude Oracle's Damage Expert For The Third Time
...there is a presumption that each issued patent contains only one independent and distinct invention. MPEP 802; see 35 U.S.C. 121, 37 C.F.R. 1.141. If each patent covers only one invention, then each claim represents merely different shades of the same invention and it is reasonable to requi......
-
An Introduction to Patent Regulations
...& Accountability Report 2 (2019), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USPTOFY19PAR.pdf. [8] 35 U.S.C. § 121; 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.141-1.146. [9] 35 U.S.C. § 121. [10] 37 C.F.R. § 1.104; MPEP § 2260. [11] 37 C.F.R. § 1.111; MPEP § 2266. [12] 37 C.F.R. § 1.113; MPEP § 2271. [13] 37 ......
Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
-
Attorney-Client Privilege for In-House Counsel
...35 U.S.C. § 121, as “ or ” is an invalid attempt at “interpretative” rule making, because changing “and” (in 35 U.S.C. § 121 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.141(a)) to “or” (in MPEP § 802.01) cannot possibly be a valid exercise of “interpretative” authority. There are a host of similar provisions in the ......
-
Printed Publications and Persons of Ordinary Skill: Did the PTAB in GoPro v. Contour IP Holding Apply an Overly Restrictive Standard?
...35 U.S.C. § 121, as “ or ” is an invalid attempt at “interpretative” rule making, because changing “and” (in 35 U.S.C. § 121 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.141(a)) to “or” (in MPEP § 802.01) cannot possibly be a valid exercise of “interpretative” authority. There are a host of similar provisions in the ......
-
The PTAB is Not an Article III Court: A Primer on Federal Agency Rule Making
...35 U.S.C. § 121, as “ or ” is an invalid attempt at “interpretative” rule making, because changing “and” (in 35 U.S.C. § 121 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.141(a)) to “or” (in MPEP § 802.01) cannot possibly be a valid exercise of “interpretative” authority. There are a host of similar provisions in the ......