Blog

I am happy to announce that I have rededicated myself to the Law Offices of Michael A. Blake, LLC and providing excellent, reasonably priced legal services to my clients. I enjoyed my two years of teaching the next generation of patent lawyers and trademark lawyers at the University of Connecticut School of Law. I was able to teach at UCONN Law half-time, while maintaining my private law practice. However, when UCONN Law asked me to consider a full time position–which would have meant giving up the Law Offices of Michael A. Blake, LLC, I had to politely decline. I love providing legal services to my wonderful clients, and plan on continuing to do so for many years to come!

The next Inventor’s Association of Connecticut (IACT) meeting will be at Fairfield University on August 30, 2016 at 7 pm. The presenter will be inventor Kevin S. Garrity. He is the founder of Squeeze Pod – a revolutionary line of single-use, travel-size, natural toiletries. Kevin will discuss the product concept, design, manufacturing and marketing challenges he experienced bringing Squeeze Pod to market. Every failure he faced presented a new and better opportunity. This is a great opportunity for other inventor’s to see how an inventor can go from the idea stage to a successful product! More information can be found here.

At the end of July, 2016 I will once again be attending the National Association of Patent Practitioners (NAPP) annual conference in Alexandria, VA at the United States Patent and Trademark (USPTO) Headquarters. I will be conferring with patent attorneys and patent agents on Patent Quality, and best patent practices. More information can be found here.

I attended a meeting of the Inventors Association of Connecticut last night at Fairfield University. Edward Goodwin, an angel investor, gave a wonderful talk on how to (and not to) approach an angel investor to raise money. He gave some very good advice, such as be able to talk about your management team, the market, and then the product/invention, all in that order of importance–from greater to lesser. More information is here.

I would like to congratulate my Milford, CT client Jay Jaser for getting a registered trademark for “SENIOR HELP DESK GUIDANCE, STRENGTH AND SAFE HARBOR FOR OUR SENIORS”. The mark can be seen here.

I would like to congratulate my Branford, CT client NEW ENGLAND COMPUTER SERVICES, INC. for obtaining a registered trademark for Entrée with respect to computer software for food inventory tracking; and Computer software for enterprise resource planning in the food distribution industry. The mark can be seen here.

In a memo dated May 19, 2016, the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy,Robert Bahr, said the following:

“The Federal Circuit in Enfish stated that certain claims directed to improvements in computer related technology, including claims directed to software, are not necessarily abstract (Step 2A). The court specifically noted that some improvements in computer-related technology, such as chip architecture or an LED display, when appropriately claimed, are undoubtedly not abstract. Explaining that software can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as hardware can, the court noted that claims directed to software, as opposed to hardware, also are not inherently abstract. Therefore, an examiner may determine that a claim directed to improvements in computer-related technology is not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility examination guidelines (and is thus patent eligible), without the need to analyze the additional elements under Step 2B. In particular, a claim directed to an improvement to computer-related technology (e.g., computer functionality) is likely not similar to claims that have previously been identified as abstract by the courts.” Emphasis this author’s.

The memo can be found here.

I will be attending the National Association of Patent Practitioners (“NAPP”) Conference this year at the end of July. It will be held in Alexandria, VA at the patent office! I have been a member of NAPP since 2004, and this will be the third NAPP Conference I have attended. NAPP is a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting patent practitioners and those working in the field of patent law in matters relating to patent prosecution and its practice. More information on the NAPP conference can be found here.

I have heard some people say that there is no longer a 1 year grace period under the America Invents Act. The currently enacted 35 USC Section 102 states in relevant part:
“35 USC § 102. Conditions for patentability; novelty
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or aFILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION.—A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—
(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor…”pplication, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(b) EXCEPTIONS.—
(1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION.—A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—
(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor…”
In fact, if “disclosure”, as some have suggested, doesn’t mean “on sale” or “public use”, then it also should not mean the other prior art listed in 102(a)(1), namely: “described in a printed publication”, or in “public use”, or “otherwise available to the public”. And if that is the case, what is left for “disclosure” to mean? Almost nothing. Thus, it is my view that there is still a 1 year grace period for when an inventor publicly discloses his invention, or offers his invention for sale, or otherwise makes a public disclosure of his invention. Of course, there has been no cases directly on point since the AIA was enacted in 2011.

On April 26, 2016 at 7 pm at Fairfield University, IACT presents Frank Morse talking about Valuing Start-up & Early Stage Companies: Art or Science. Frank currently serves on the state board of Crossroads Venture Group and has served on the boards of several Connecticut based companies. More information can be seen here. This is a good opportunity for inventors to meet other inventors.