You know that moment when you come up with what feels like a brilliant invention, only to have a patent examiner say, "Well, that's just obvious"? That’s where KSR v. Teleflex comes in — a Supreme Court case that quietly reshaped the rules of innovation, changing forever the way of determining whether an invention is truly novel or merely a predictable mix of existing ideas.
In patent applications, contracts, and statutes, every word and every punctuation mark must eliminate ambiguity rather than create it. One of the simplest yet most powerful tools for achieving that clarity is the serial comma—also called the Oxford comma or Harvard comma—the comma placed immediately before the coordinating conjunction (usually “and” or “or”) in a list of three or more items.
For companies seeking patent protection across Europe, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), understanding the differences between the traditional granted European patent and the newer Unitary Patent (European patent with unitary effect) is crucial for managing Intellectual Property (IP). While both systems originate from a single application process at the European Patent Office (EPO), they differ significantly in their territorial effect and post-grant requirements.
A clear patent application is as much about organization as it is about technical detail. A common mistake is haphazardly jumping between drawings, which disrupts the narrative and frustrates examiners who need to grasp your invention quickly.
The solution is both simple and effective: a disciplined, figure-by-figure approach. This method creates a logical pathway, guiding your reader smoothly through your invention's story.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is launching its Automated Search Pilot Program, introducing artificial intelligence into patent examination. This initiative could fundamentally change how inventors approach patent prosecution.