Plumsea Law Group LLC

Offices

USA
1. Bethesda MD
  
  10411 Motor City Drive, Suite 320, Bethesda MD 20817, USA T 1 301 365 9040 F 1 301 365 9101

Pro hac vice admission before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board discretionary and for good cause
USA - March 14 2013
The new trial proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("the Board") permit the Board in its discretion to "recognize counsel pro hac
Part 1: a tale of two views substantial evidence vs. a thorough & searching inquiry, in a post-KSR world
USA - June 12 2012
As the M.P.E.P. instructs, “while the ultimate determination of obviousness is a legal conclusion, the underlying Graham inquiries are factual.”
In the course of an obviousness-based reversal of the BPAI, the CAFC reminds us that drawings can be used as prior art, without referring to the surrounding description, only if the prior art features are clearly disclosed by the drawing
USA - May 22 2012
In a nonprecedential opinion, PlaSmart, Inc. v. David J. Kappos et al., No. 2011-1570 (Fed. Cir. decided May 22, 2012), Judge Lourie writes for the CAFC in reversing the BPAI on two grounds
Part 2: a tale of two views substantial evidence vs. a thorough & searching inquiry, in a post-KSR world
USA - July 9 2012
In Part 1 of this article, we examined the majority opinion in In Re Suong-Hyu Hyon and Masanori Oka

See more articles

Pro hac vice admission before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board discretionary and for good cause
USA - March 14 2013
The new trial proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("the Board") permit the Board in its discretion to "recognize counsel pro hac
Part 2: a tale of two views substantial evidence vs. a thorough & searching inquiry, in a post-KSR world
USA - July 9 2012
In Part 1 of this article, we examined the majority opinion in In Re Suong-Hyu Hyon and Masanori Oka
Part 1: a tale of two views substantial evidence vs. a thorough & searching inquiry, in a post-KSR world
USA - June 12 2012
As the M.P.E.P. instructs, “while the ultimate determination of obviousness is a legal conclusion, the underlying Graham inquiries are factual.”
In the course of an obviousness-based reversal of the BPAI, the CAFC reminds us that drawings can be used as prior art, without referring to the surrounding description, only if the prior art features are clearly disclosed by the drawing
USA - May 22 2012
In a nonprecedential opinion, PlaSmart, Inc. v. David J. Kappos et al., No. 2011-1570 (Fed. Cir. decided May 22, 2012), Judge Lourie writes for the CAFC in reversing the BPAI on two grounds

See more articles