Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward and Merpel. E-mail the Kats here!

The team is joined by GuestKats Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot, Jocelyn Bosse, Alessandro Cerri, Anastasiia Kyrylenko, Marcel Pemsel and Anna Maria Stein.

SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Antonios Baris (Book Review Editor), Rose Hughes (PatKat) and Chijioke Okorie (Africa Correspondent).

InternKats: Asude Sena Moya and Söğüt Atilla.
Home / patents / USPTO / US Court says no to USPTO rule changes

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?
US Court says no to USPTO rule changes US Court says no to USPTO rule changes Reviewed by David Pearce on Tuesday, April 01, 2008 Rating: 5

7 comments:

  1. AnonymousWednesday, 2 April 2008 at 09:35:00 GMT+1

    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?

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousWednesday, 2 April 2008 at 14:44:00 GMT+1

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousWednesday, 2 April 2008 at 16:46:00 GMT+1

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  4. David PearceWednesday, 2 April 2008 at 18:01:00 GMT+1

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

    ReplyDelete
  5. twr57Wednesday, 2 April 2008 at 23:22:00 GMT+1

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousThursday, 3 April 2008 at 09:06:00 GMT+1

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

    See: Ferrous

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousThursday, 3 April 2008 at 10:28:00 GMT+1

    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

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )
Powered by Blogger.