The latest article from IP Watchdog examines the importance of proper wording when drafting Intellectual Property (IP) licenses. It acknowledges the need to balance tradition and clarity when writing agreements, and cautions against overusing the term "shall."
It examines alternatives to "shall," such as "will," "agree," and "must," and emphasizes the need to use plain English that can be readily understood by diverse audiences. It emphasizes the importance of ensuring that any use of "shall" passes the "has a duty to" test when used to impose obligations on a particular party to the agreement.
Metrolex IP changing Letters Patent procedures to accommodate USPTOs new eGrant program
Beginning April 18, 2023, the USPTO will begin issuing electronic patent grants (eGrants) to patent recipients, which minimizes paper waste, potentially reduces patent pendency, and allows recipients to get their patent grant in PDF format on the day of issue.
METROLEX IP Annual Christmas Lunch
As the year comes to a close, Metrolex IP Law Group is celebrating the holiday season and reflecting on another successful year thanks to our wonderful clients and staff. Our annual Christmas lunch or “忘年会” (bōnenkai) is a chance for us to come together as a team, enjoy each other's company, and celebrate the end of the year!
Proposed Senate Bill (S.4734) Fails to Address the Fundamental Eligibility Problems
The eligibility provisions of 35 U.S.C. 101 and the jurisprudence surrounding it, as currently interpreted by the USPTO and courts, continue to be surrounded by confusion and controversy. While section 101 was originally intended to be a door that “swung wide” to admit the broadest possible array of inventions and to exclude only subject matter that would preempt products occurring in nature, natural elements and laws, the current state of eligibility jurisprudence has rendered the eligibility hurdle unpredictable and arbitrary and difficult to overcome.
This article from IP Watchdog covers why the section was problematic from its inception, the problems stemming from the pivotal Alice v. CLS Bank case, and the shortcomings of the proposed legislation. In addition, the authors provide their insights on how to restore Section 101 to its intended meaning when it was originally instituted in the Patent Act of 1952.
