Starting from February 1, 2023, the USPTO will begin the new Cancer Moonshot Expedited Examination Pilot Program that advances out-of-turn applications that are directed to oncology or smoking cessation. This new program will replace the Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program that has been in place since 2016, and covers more technologies than only cancer immunotherapies. Applications accepted into the new program will be accorded special status in Examiner’s docket and enjoy expedited examination until the first Office action is issued (including restriction requirements). The new program is available for a non-reissue (original), nonprovisional utility application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), or an international application that has entered the national stage under…
- Accelerated Patent Examination, Cancer Moonshot Expedited Examination, Expedited Examination, Patent Law, Pharma, Pilot Program, US, USPTO
-
FOLLOW UP: Amendments to the China Patent Examination Guidelines in 2022 – Part 1: New rules for designs in view of China signing onto the Hague Agreement
Since the publication of our earlier article about China signing onto the Hague Agreement, some of our Hong Kong clients have expressed interest in taking advantage of the Hague international design application system, i.e., filing a Hague international design application with the CNIPA (Chinese National Intellectual Property Administration) as a receiving office (RO). Up until this moment, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the CNIPA[1] have been silent on whether a Hong Kong design applicant without a habitual residence or business office in mainland China would be eligible to file a Hague international design application with the CNIPA as a RO. We recently brought this matter forward to the…
- China, Court Cases, Courts, Drafting, Inventions, Patent Law, Patent Re-examination Board, Quality, Supreme People's Court
Chinese Courts Cares More About Patent Quality Now (A Doctrine of Equivalents Story)
There is no doubt that the drafting quality of a patent can be crucial in determining the success (or failure!) of the patent during litigation. However, due to various reasons, patents often fail to use the right drafting strategies that best protect the invention. Too often, inexperienced or unsophisticated patent drafters merely listen to an inventor and literally describe the features of an invention. Worst yet, some inventors try to draft their own application, making the similar mistake of describing an invention too specifically and narrowly, leaving plenty of “design-around” space. Even though a patent may grant, the protection scope for that invention is weak, at best, and may even…




