WHIPgroup Successfully obtained patent allowance with an Appeal Brief. The invention is directed to an agitator ball mill, and has cams with specific ratios that improve mixing, cooling, and durability. The Patent Office rejected all claims on the basis that the specification allegedly failed to support “criticality” of the claimed ratios and that they allegedly would have been the result of routine optimization. WHIPgroup filed an Appeal Brief arguing that the claimed ratios provide benefits over the prior art and that the Patent Office used improper hindsight to reject the claims without evidence. Rather than Answer the Appeal Brief, the Patent Office issued a Notice of Allowance for all pending claims. Accordingly, allowance was secured by WHIPgroup without the need to file a Reply Brief or a Request for Continued Examination (RCE).
Under U.S. law, anyone who uses a system that is likely to have been made by a patented process, and who does not demonstrate that the system was not made by the patented process, is [Read More…]
Recently, WHIPGROUP engaged in an arbitration that included a five day hearing in the City. Here are some thoughts about why arbitration is different (not clearly better or worse) than litigation. Venue The AAA arbitral [Read More…]
WHIPGroup previously filed a Motion to Dismiss a patent infringement suit filed against its client TomTom in the Western District of Texas. Rather than opposing WHIPGroup’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiff MDSP Technologies LLC voluntarily dismissed [Read More…]