All posts by: Silvia Salvadori

About Silvia Salvadori

Provisional applications are generally used to provide a valid priority date for an invention claimed in a subsequent non-provisional application. However, even a well drafted provisional application may fail to describe the claimed invention with “adequate specificity.” In a recent case, Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Iancu, the main claim was directed to a controlled release […]

In the recent decision Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Iancu, the Federal Circuit held that the USPTO wrongly imposed a Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) to the applicant for an Information Disclosures Statement (IDS) filed after a Request for Continued Examination (RCE). Patent Term Adjustment Statute The PTA statute establishes that an award in patent term should […]

On January 7, 2019 the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance in the Federal Register Notice. The Guidance revises the procedures for determining whether a patent claim or patent application claim is directed to a judicial exception (laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas) under […]

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is implementing the first phase of the Access to Relevant Prior Art Initiative (“RPA Initiative”) to import from the immediate parent application into the continuing application. RPA Initiative Explained: In a continuing application, the citations corresponding to the documents considered by the examiner will be printed on […]

In a recent case, Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. v. Cepheid, the Federal Circuit affirmed that claims directed to a nucleotide primer and claims directed to a detection method are invalid under 35 USC § 101. The patent covered primers and methods for a rapid detection of M. tuberculosis on the basis of the presence of […]

In a recent case, E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., the Federal Circuit outlined four (4) ways to overcome obviousness rejections based on routine optimization. The patent at issue covered methods for preparing a compound under reaction conditions already described in three prior art references. The court made reference to the classic […]