We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 4,919

China Update: “Small is beautiful” - the potential need for additional focused claims
  • Spruson & Ferguson
  • China
  • August 16 2018

In our news alert of March 16, 2017 we reported on the recent changes in the Guidelines for Examination. In one paragraph we speculated that there is


CAFC Holds USPTO Cannot Recover Attorneys’ Fees Under 35 USC 145 in Nantkwest v. Iancu
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • August 15 2018

In Nantkwest, Inc. v. Iancu, No. 2016-1794 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2018), the CAFC, sitting en banc (excl. Chen, C.J.), affirmed the district court’s


Expenses Under 35 U.S.C. 145 Does Not Include Attorneys’ Fees
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • August 9 2018

In Nantkwest, Inc. v. Iancu, No. 2016-1794 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2018), the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc (excl. Chen, C.J.), affirmed the district


India: Shri Suresh Prabhu clarifies issue of pendency in Patent and Trademark Applications during the question hour of Lok Sabha
  • SS Rana & Co
  • India
  • August 7 2018

In the question hour of Lok Sabha on August 6, 2018 the focus was shifted on the pendency of the Patent Applications with the Controller General of


Examination of Clarity of Patent Disclosure Shall Be Based on the Claimed Invention as Disclosed in the Patent Specification
  • Lee and Li Attorneys at Law
  • Taiwan
  • August 1 2018

The granting of a patent is a social contract, under which the inventor discloses his invention in exchange for patent protection. Therefore, Article


Vanda Pharm. Inc. v. West-Ward Pharm.
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • USA
  • August 1 2018

On June 7, 2018, USPTO Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Procedure Robert W. Bahr issued a Memorandum on Recent Subject Matter Eligibility


Federal Circuit: “All the Expenses” Does Not Mean “Attorneys’ Fees”
  • Jones Day
  • USA
  • July 31 2018

Last Friday, the Federal Circuit issued its en banc opinion in NantKwest, Inc. v. Iancu, No. 16-1794 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2018). The Court held, by a


Adjustment of China Patent Government Fees as of 1 August 2018
  • Lee and Li Attorneys at Law
  • China
  • July 27 2018

According to the Announcement No. 272 issued by the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), the SIPO will adjust certain patent fee items as of 1


En Banc Federal Circuit Rejects Shifting USPTO’s Attorney Fees To Patent Applicants In 145 Actions
  • Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto
  • USA
  • July 27 2018

The Patent Act provides two options for patent applicants seeking judicial review of an adverse decision by the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board:


First impressions of the Brazilian pre-examination measure: a remedy to the backlog?
  • Di Blasi, Parente & Associados
  • Brazil
  • July 24 2018

The Brazilian Patent Office (BPO) has been historically struggling to keep its pace on the examination of patent applications filed in Brazil, leading