Call Tucker Law Today! Toll Free 1-800-TUCKERWINS
FacebookXInstagramYouTube

Patents

The STRONGER Patents Act: What It Means for Patent Owners and How Tucker Law Can Help

If you're a patent owner, you may have heard about the recently passed STRONGER Patents Act and are wondering how it will affect your rights. The Act, which was signed into law in the past month, aims to improve and strengthen the patent system in the United States. One key provision of the Act is the expansion of patent eligible subject matter to include new technologies such as artificial intelligence and blockchain. This change could make it easier for innovators in these fields to obtain patents for their inventions. The Act also includes provisions to address issues such as post-grant review proceedings and damages calculations. These changes could potentially make it easier for patent owners to enforce their rights and recover damages for infringement. If you're a patent owner and are concerned about how the STRONGER Patents Act may impact your rights, it's important to seek the advice of an experienced patent attorney. At Tucker Law, we have a team led by Registered Patent Attorney Matthew Tucker who can help you navigate the complex world of patent law. Contact a patent attorney with Tucker Law today to schedule a consultation and learn more about how Tucker Law can assist you with your case.

By |2022-12-29T20:37:14-05:00December 30th, 2022|Patents, Stronger Patents Act|Comments Off on The STRONGER Patents Act: What It Means for Patent Owners and How Tucker Law Can Help
Read More

Supreme Court Clarifies Patent Eligibility in Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service

On December 22, 2021, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, which has significant implications for patent law in the United States. In this case, Return Mail, Inc. (RMI) held a patent for a system for processing undeliverable mail. RMI accused the United States Postal Service (USPS) of infringing on this patent by using a similar system without a license. The USPS argued that RMI's patent was invalid because it claimed an abstract idea, which is not eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court agreed with the USPS, ruling that RMI's patent was indeed invalid. This ruling is significant because it reaffirms the principle that patents cannot be granted for abstract ideas. In recent years, there has been a debate over the extent to which abstract ideas, such as algorithms, can be patented. The Supreme Court's decision in this case makes it clear that patents cannot be granted for abstract ideas, and that patents must be directed towards a specific, concrete application of an idea. The ruling in this case also has implications for patent holders and those accused of infringing on patents. Patent holders will now need to be more careful to ensure that their patents claim specific, concrete applications of ideas, rather than abstract ideas themselves. Those accused of infringing on patents will have more leeway to argue that the patent in question is invalid because it claims an abstract idea. Overall, the Supreme Court's ruling in the Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service case is a victory for those who believe in limiting the scope of patent protection and promoting innovation. It [...]

By |2022-12-29T18:46:43-05:00December 29th, 2022|Patents, Supreme Court|Comments Off on Supreme Court Clarifies Patent Eligibility in Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service
Read More
Go to Top