Skip to Content

Talking Turkey About Patents

Thanksgiving is the best family holiday. It is stocked full of tradition: family, laughing, turkey dinner, football, and more turkey; while at the same serving as a catalog for memories that mark the progression of our lives. Fortunately, I was always able to get at least one of the Turkey legs, which you could pick up like fried chicken and dive-in without concern for cutlery rules, dripping juice or falling bits of skin or meat (these were the dog’s responsibility). Imagine the shock when a few months ago I stumbled on U.S. Patent No. 10,327,596 for a turkey leg holder.

Don’t Get Caught Watching the Paint Dry: Patent Term Adjustment and Replies After Final

As patent practitioners, so much of what we do is managing deadlines, devising strategy within those deadlines and evaluating the impact of delay.  The importance of this is illustrated in Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. v. Andrei Iancu[1] where the Federal Circuit upheld a decision by the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on patent term adjustment (PTA).[2]  It serves as a reminder to practitioners that in addition to other tactical considerations involved in replying to a Final Office Action, they must also account for its effect on PTA.

Make Mine Extra-Crispy: Deep Fryers, Motivation-to-Combine, and Secondary Conditions in Obviousness Analysis

In Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC[1] the Federal Circuit upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s inter partes review decision that claims 1-3, 5-12, 17-21, and 23 of Frymaster’s patent U.S. 8,497,691 (‘691 Patent) were not unpatentable as obvious.[2]  It is an interesting case because it illustrates a finding of nonobviousness where the Board not only held that there was no motivation to combine, but endorsed a showing of secondary considerations.