Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

Recent Headlines in the IP World:

Commentary and Journal Articles:

New Job Postings on Patently-O:

9 thoughts on “Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

  1. 1

    Atty. Alex Moss: >>>According to the court, the description didn’t qualify as material that could invalidate the patent being challenged because it did not appear in the “claims”—the section specifying the legal boundaries of the applicant’s rights – but rather in the section of the patent application describing the nature and operation of the applicant’s work. Ariosa v. Illumina

    I haven’t read Ariosa v. Illumina, but I’d wager this is at best a misrepresentation of the holding.

    1. 1.1

      Yes, the quoted “because it did not appear in the “claims”” is not correct. The decision is about saying content in a provisional application specification is not prior art as of its filing date if it is not later claimed in the formal application published or patented claiming priority benefit from the provisional. Claiming content is not the same as having content “appear” in a claim.

      1. 1.1.1

        Yeah, I am kind of thinking that Ariosa v. Illumina is wrong now that I take a look at it.

        Actually, this is an odd one. I missed this one.


          Yes, of recent certs, Ariosa v. Illumina really does deserve a trip to the Sup. Ct. wood shed.

Comments are closed.