Events & Insights
PPG thought leadership.
This article explores the complexities of AI in the context of patents, offering insights into the challenges and strategies for protecting AI-related inventions in this emerging field.
Developing an Intellectual Property (IP) strategy is an important first step for startups to protect their innovations.
The IP strategy should take into consideration budgetary constraints, timelines associated with various rounds of funding and investment, along with an understanding of the different potential products, methods of making and using, and/or licensing opportunities associated with the technology to be protected.
Biotech innovations drive progress, holding the promise of transforming lives. Safeguarding these groundbreaking discoveries and inventions through intellectual property (IP) rights, particularly patents, is crucial.
Encompassing fields such as pharmaceuticals, gene and cell therapy, and immunotherapy, biotech represents a scientific frontier with the potential to address global challenges from healthcare to agriculture. However, transitioning a scientific discovery to a patentable invention requires careful legal evaluation and strategic planning.
The goal of patents has always been an exchange: for disclosing how to make and use someone new and non-obvious, the inventor is entitled to a period of exclusivity to capture the economic benefit thereof. Terminal Disclaimer are no longer necessary to insure this balance but are punitive in nature.
There are pros and cons to all the various forms of intellectual property protections. This guide for innovators helps strategize the optimal path to safeguard intellectual property and maximize ideas' commercial potential.
From accountability to enforceability, there are many hurdles when trying to patent new technologies. For a patent attorney, the job is a lot simpler: what is the invention and who cares about it?
There are two common misconceptions about “grace periods” i.e., a period of time prior to filing for a patent in which a publication may be removed as prior art to a patent application: that only the U.S. has a grace period, and that you cannot utilize grace periods outside of the U.S.
When filing a patent application, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and patent offices outside of the US require signed documents, including Declarations of Inventorship, Assignments, and Powers of Attorney. While original wet signatures can be used in all jurisdictions to sign these documents, the USPTO and many other jurisdictions accept electronic signatures if they are provided in the proper format.
In HIP, Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corporation, No. 22-1996 (Fed. Cir. 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed a claim of joint ownership and, in an unanimous precedential decision, reaffirmed the framework for determining the degree of contribution that an individual must make in order to qualify as an inventor.
In this article, PPG Partner Patrea Pabst explains how the MDE granted by regulatory agencies can extend market exclusivity beyond the life of your drug patents, both in the US and abroad.
An International Application filed under The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) (colloquially referred to as a “PCT application”), is filed in a receiving office (RO) and the claimed invention undergoes a prior art search by an International Searching Authority (ISA) .
Adequate preparation before an interview cannot be over emphasized. Interview time is limited for both parties – typically 20 to 30 minutes – so every moment counts. Be ready.
An Examiner’s interview is a valuable process that allows the Practitioner (and inventor, if available, collectively) to have a conversation with the USPTO Examiner assigned to the application.
It’s true: examiners generally reject most patent applications. While most rejections can be overcome by amending the claims, this creates a problem: narrowing the scope of coverage. So, should you argue against the rejection or narrow the claims?
