For the half-year to 31 December 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Rebecca Gulbul, Lucas Michels and Marie-Andrée Weiss.

Regular round-ups of the previous week's blogposts are kindly compiled by Alberto Bellan.

Tuesday, 1 April 2008

US Court says no to USPTO rule changes

The debacle over the USPTO's proposed rule changes appears to have reached a further milestone, following the last-minute injunction preventing new rules from being implemented on 1 November last year (see here). Patently-O reports that the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has today decided to issue a permanent injunction against the USPTO. The Court has granted summary judgment and has made the rules void for being "otherwise not in accordance with the law" and "in excess of statutory jurisdiction and authority" (IPKat translation: ultra vires; why can't these Americans just speak normal English?).

Patent attorneys in the US, and indeed R.O.W., can now afford a slightly longer sigh of relief now that their clients will not be facing further complications at the USPTO (which the IPKat thinks is already quite complicated enough) for some time to come. Merpel wonders what all the fuss is about: wouldn't all this added complication mean more money for attorneys anyway?

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

So, how long are we going to have to wait before the USPTO catch on to the EPO's ripping wheeze of increasing claims fees massively in order to reduce the number of claims in applications, and consequently their workload?

Anonymous said...

I thought ultra vires was plain Latin, not plain English. After all, doesn't ultra vires in the relevant case mean in excess of statutory authority? In other words, the US Supreme Court is using plain English. The IPKAT is not.

Gobhicks said...

Re I thought ultra vires was plain Latin, not plain English

It's true then, there's no place for humour on the interweb...

David said...

Unless, of course, the previous commenter was being ironic rather than merely retarded. Sometimes it's difficult to tell.

twr57 said...

That is the great advantage of irony. You can say anything that comes into your head, and decide later whether you meant it ironically or not.

Gobhicks said...

Of course, if you look up "irony" in an American dictionary it says

See: Ferrous

Anonymous said...

All this reminds me of an EQE tutorial I was at some years ago.

There was a discussion as to whether the legal effect of failing to perform a particular act was "ex nunc" or "ex tunc". The tutor confirmed it was ex tunc, but recommended avoiding the use of such phrases in the exam. Some bright spark suggested "ab initio" as an alternative.

Oh, patent humour...

Gerontius

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':