READER NOTICE: The 271 patent blog will be undergoing some technical maintenance over the next few days, and no posting will be done until next week. Apologies to all for the inconvenience . . .
By Peter Zura
Linkbar
Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog
Subscribe to the 271 Blog Using FeedBlitz
BlogRoll
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(138)
-
▼
March
(7)
- READER NOTICE: The 271 patent blog will be underg...
- OUT OF THE FIRE AND BACK TO THE FRYING PAN - FORG...
- BUSINESS METHODS CHARGE THROUGH TV BROADCASTING: W...
- ANXIETY LEVELS RISE AS PATENT AUCTION LOOMS: On A...
- PROSECUTION HISTORY OVERTURNS COURT'S CLAIM CONSTR...
- SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS PRESUMPTION OF MARKET POWE...
- BALTHASER'S PATENT, THE HYPE, AND THE BACKLASH: La...
-
▼
March
(7)
Posts
About Me
- Two-Seventy-One Patent Blog
- Chicago, Illinois, United States
- Peter is a patent attorney practicing with a general-practice firm in the Chicago area. He handles a diverse intellectual property practice in the electrical, computer and software fields for leading technology companies located throughout the world, as well as for local and national start-ups and business ventures. He works closely with established and emerging-growth companies to implement successful patenting and litigation strategies. He is also a former patent examiner with the USPTO, and sincerely hopes you won't hold that against him.
DISCLAIMER
This Blog/Web Site ("Blog") is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Use of the Blog does not create any attorney-client relationship between you and Peter Zura or his firm. Persons requiring legal advice should contact a licensed attorney in your state. Any comment posted on the Blog can be read by any Blog visitor; do not post confidential or sensitive information. Any links from another site to the Blog are beyond the control of Peter Zura and does not convey his, or his past or present employer(s) approval, support, endorsement or any relationship to any site or organization.
That's a long week!
Just visiting, love the page.
Query
Please consider the following cases:
Patent A; Filling date A; Priority date A - US patent
&
Patent B; Filling date B; Priority date B - US patent
Now patent A and patent B have overlapping features.
Consider a first case, when Filling date A > Filling date B, This implies that Patent B can invalidate Patent A.
Consider a second case, when Priority date A > Priority date B, however, Patent B is seeking priority from some other patent that falls outside USPTO jurisdiction.... say a JP patent. Then can Patent B invalidate patent A.
I recently got informed that according US patent laws, patent B can not invalidate patent A, if patent B is seeking priority from outside US patents (i.e the second case).
Your views for this are awaited.
Regards,
cK
Post a Comment