WHIPgroup attorneys successfully appealed rejections for a patent application directed to an endoscope having an improved joining seam on the edge of a window to prevent penetration of moisture into the interior of the endoscope. In its Appeal briefs, WHIPgroup argued that there would not have been any motivation to make an endoscopic component of a first reference out of a particular material, based on another reference’s teaching of a completely different component made of that material. The Board agreed with WHIPgroup’s arguments, stating “the Examiner has not explained sufficiently how Harley’s teaching regarding suitable materials for an optical system spacer and endoscope insertion tube would have motivated a skilled artisan to make Hibbard’s stainless steel interior tube … of the same Invar™ material as Harley’s spacers.” Having found the Examiner failed to provide evidence or persuasive explanation, the Board reversed all rejections without oral argument.
By William L. Birks “The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” 35 U.S.C. § 285 While every prevailing party would seek attorney fees if they could, it’s important [Read More…]
By Patrick D. Duplessis As we recently reported, the Arterton Inn of Court held its first substantive event on the 2018-2019 session, and WHIPgroup attorneys played a major role in preparing the event. The event, [Read More…]
By Lauren C. Matturri In December 2018 toy company MGA Entertainment Inc. filed a declaratory judgment against Louis Vuitton. This was to preempt the French fashion house from claiming MGA Entertainment’s Pooey Puitton toy was [Read More…]