| Using a Suggestion of Interference to Undermine a Competitor’s U.S. Patent Application |
Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal |
2011 |
| (169) A Critique of Recent Opinions in Patent Interferences |
Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society |
2011 |
| (168) What to Do if the APJ Limits the Number of Claims to be Added to a Patent or an Application in Interference |
Intellectual Property Today |
2011 |
| (167) What to Do if Fewer Than All of the Named Inventors Contributed to the Subject Matter Defined by the Count?, |
Intellectual Property Today |
2011 |
| (166) What Does Your Priority Statement Buy You?, |
Intellectual Property Today |
2011 |
| (165) Is the Board Putting Some Teeth into the Sanctions Rule?, |
Intellectual Property Today |
2011 |
| (164) You Must Aggressively Assert Your Rights Under Koninklijke! |
Intellectual Property Today |
2010 |
| (163) When Should a Patentability Motion Be Deferred to the Second Phase |
Intellectual Property Today |
2010 |
| How Close is Close Enough? |
Intellectual Property Today |
2010 |
| Is the Respondent’s Entire Specification “Prior Art” in a Motion for a Judgment of No-Interference-in-Fact?, |
Intellectual Property Today |
2010 |
| (160) Should a Patent Infringement Action Be Stayed Pending Resolution of an Interference Involving the Patent Asserted in the Infringement Action?, |
Intellectual Property Today |
2010 |
| (159) Would Derivation Proceedings Be the Same as Derivation Interferences?, |
Medical Innovations and Business |
2010 |
| When, If Ever, Do Broadening Amendments Create Problems Under 35 USC 135(b)?, |
Intellectual Property Today |
2010 |
| (157) Are All Panels of the Federal Circuit Following Agilent and Phillips?, |
Intellectual Property Today |
2010 |
| (156) A Critique of Recent Opinions in Patent Interferences |
Intellectual Property Today |
2010 |
| (155) Are Agilent and Philips Limited to Claims Copied in Ipsissimis Verbis?, |
Intellectual Property Today |
2010 |
| How Good is Good Enough?, |
Intellectual Property Today |
2010 |
| (153) The Board Must Decide Every Patentability Motion That is “Fairly Raised and Fully Developed During the Interference”--But Must it Permit Every Authorized Patentability Motion to Be “Fully Developed”?, |
Intellectual Property Today |
2010 |
| (152) Prosecution of Targeting and Targeted Applications Before the Same Examiner, |
Intellectual Property Today |
2010 |
| (151) Are District Court Orders Remanding 35 USC 146 Actions Appealable?, |
Intellectual Property Today |
2010 |
| Patent and Trademark Jurisdiction of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals |
Washington Law Review |
1973 |
| (4) The Defense of Patent Invalidity in Tariff Commission Patent Actions |
Journal of the Patent Office Society |
1973 |
| (3) Recent Developments in the CCPA Relating to the First Paragraph of 35 USC 112 |
Journal of the Patent Office Society |
1972 |
| Commissioners for the CCPA |
Journal of the Patent Office Society |
1971 |
