Elevating Patent Clarity: The Strategic Use of ‘Threshold’ in Patent Drafting

Articles, Practical Patents, Team , , ,

In this edition of the Practical Patents series, we delve into the nuanced use of the term ‘threshold’ in patent language, guided by Neil Kardos. This exploration highlights the importance of precision in patent drafting, a critical skill in the art of protecting intellectual property.

In the meticulous realm of patent drafting, every word counts. The term ‘threshold’ might appear straightforward, yet its application in patents is anything but. Neil explains this with two insightful examples.

1. Achieving Precision Over Vagueness

Clarity is the cornerstone of effective patent drafting. Generic terms like ‘high’ and ‘low’ are laden with ambiguity, often leading to Section 112 rejections. Neil’s advice is to opt for phrases such as ‘satisfies’ or ‘does not satisfy a threshold.’ This method enhances clarity and strengthens the enforceability of the patent.

2. Broadening Patent Scope Through ‘Threshold’

In instances where an inventor provides a specific number or range, the term ‘threshold’ can be used to expand the invention’s scope. By defining these figures as examples of satisfying a ‘threshold,’ a patent can encompass a broader range of applications, enhancing its protective coverage.

Neil emphasizes caution in using ‘threshold.’ He advises against framing claims based solely on a value being ‘greater than’ or ‘less than’ a threshold. Such language can inadvertently open doors for competitive workarounds.

Instead, Neil recommends a more comprehensive approach: asserting that a value ‘satisfies the threshold’ or ‘satisfies a condition.’ This strategy, when combined with a detailed specification, provides a stronger, more defensible patent.

As we conclude this discussion, we’re reminded of the critical role precise language plays in patent law. Neil’s insights into the use of ‘threshold’ underscore the importance of thoughtful and strategic patent drafting.

Stay tuned for more insightful tips and tricks from Neil in our Practical Patents series! Until next time, happy patenting!

Note: This blog post is based on the opinions and observations of the author and should not be considered legal advice. Consult a qualified patent attorney for specific guidance on patent application drafting.

Want more tips? Check out other Practical Patents videos with Neil Kardos here!

Harrity Named US News 2024 Best Companies to Work For: Law Firms

Firm News, General, Team , , , , , ,

Harrity & Harrity, LLP Named a ‘Best Company to Work For: Law Firms’ by US News & World Report, Reflecting Excellence in Employee Satisfaction and Workplace Environment

Washington, D.C. – January 30, 2024

Harrity & Harrity, LLP is honored to announce its recognition as one of the Best Companies to Work For in 2024: Law Firms by US News & World Report. This prestigious distinction is based on a comprehensive evaluation method that highlights the firm’s commitment to creating an outstanding work environment.

The US News & World Report’s methodology for this ranking involves a detailed analysis of various factors that contribute to a positive workplace. These include quality pay and benefits, work/life balance, job stability, professional development opportunities, and overall employee well-being. This thorough assessment, leveraging data from Revelio Labs and Leopard Solutions, reflects the real-world experiences and perceptions of employees.

“Our inclusion in this list validates our efforts in providing a fulfilling and supportive workplace,” said Paul Harrity, Managing Partner. “At Harrity & Harrity, we strive not only for excellence in serving our clients but also in ensuring our team members have the resources and environment they need to thrive.”

The ranking process involved scaling and standardizing various metrics on a 1-5 scale, reflecting the firm’s outstanding performance in critical areas like compensation, job security, and employee satisfaction. This recognition underscores Harrity & Harrity’s dedication to fostering a culture of respect, inclusivity, and professional growth.

About Harrity & Harrity, LLP

Harrity & Harrity, LLP is a boutique patent law firm specializing in electrical, mechanical, and computer technologies. Based in the Washington, D.C. area, the firm is committed to fostering an innovative, progressive, and inclusive workplace. With a nationally dispersed remote team of skilled patent attorneys, patent agents, and support staff, Harrity & Harrity is at the forefront of providing high-quality, efficient, and automated patent services.

 

Maximizing Efficiency: A Case Study on Using the Patent 300® Report for Assessing Law Firm Performance

Case Study, Patent 300, Patent Analytics , , , ,

By Rocky Berndsen, Head of Analytics

In the ever-evolving realm of patent law, in-house attorneys face the critical task of assessing and optimizing the performance of their outside counsel. This blog post delves into a practical case study illustrating how an in-house attorney can leverage the insights from the Patent 300® Company Report to evaluate and enhance the effectiveness of their law firms in patent prosecution.

Step-by-Step Guide:

  1. Analyzing Key Metrics: The report provides comprehensive data, including total patents issued, average cost, office action frequency, and more. By comparing these metrics across different firms, an attorney can identify performance trends and cost-efficiency.
  2. Benchmarking Success Rates: Through examining specific metrics like interview success and extension of time requests, attorneys can benchmark their firms against industry standards, pinpointing areas for improvement.
  3. Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation: The average cost per patent metric is pivotal for assessing the financial aspect of the firm’s performance, helping in making budget-conscious decisions.
  4. Strategic Decision Making: With a detailed breakdown of each firm’s performance, an attorney can make informed decisions about continuing, modifying, or terminating relationships with specific outside counsel.
  5. Future Planning: The technology breakdowns and patent prosecution stats offer insights for future patent strategies, ensuring alignment with the company’s overall IP goals.

This case study exemplifies how an in-house attorney can transform raw data into actionable insights, leading to a more efficient and strategic approach in managing outside counsel for patent prosecution.

By embracing the detailed analysis offered by the Patent 300® Company Report, attorneys can not only assess but also significantly improve their firms’ performance, aligning it with the company’s broader intellectual property objectives.

Download a Complimentary Report on Your Company HERE

Review our Sample Report on Nvidia:

Nvidia - 2024 Patent 300® Company Report

Looking for more detailed analytics on your company or your competitors?

CONTACT US HERE

High Level Patent Portfolio Assessment Using Harrity’s Patent 300® Company Report

Patent 300, Patent Analytics , , , ,

By Rocky Berndsen, Head of Analytics

Could a Glance at the Big Picture Reveal Secrets to Refining Your IP Strategy?

In the intricate world of intellectual property, IP counsel often find themselves deeply immersed in the minutiae of patents and portfolios. The challenge is real: staying afloat in a sea of detailed legal and technical complexities. But, what if the key to a breakthrough in patent strategy lies in a broader perspective? Could stepping back to observe high-level trends be the game-changer for assessing and enhancing your patent practice?

A Key to Unlock Patent Insights

Our Patent 300® Company Report is more than just a document; it’s a window to a world of strategic insights. With this report, IP counsel can transcend beyond the everyday details and gaze at the bigger picture. This high-level view offers a unique opportunity to understand the broader trends in patenting, helping you refine and realign your IP strategy effectively.

Exclusive Sample: NVIDIA Report

To give you a taste of what our report offers, we have attached a sample report for NVIDIA. This sample includes high-level patenting trends, detailed patent prosecution stats, insights into outside counsel costs, and a breakdown of technological focuses. It’s a glimpse into the kind of comprehensive analysis and strategic guidance that our full report offers.

Nvidia - 2024 Patent 300® Company Report

At Harrity, we believe in the power of perspective. It’s why we are excited to offer a unique tool that unlocks this very insight – the comprehensive portfolio report for companies on the distinguished Patent 300® List.

DOWNLOAD A COMPLIMENTARY COMPANY REPORT HERE

Your Guide to the Patent 300 Landscape

Are you curious to see who made it to this year’s Patent 300 List? We’ve got you covered. Visit HERE to discover the companies leading the charge in innovation and intellectual property.

Dive Deep into Patent Trends

The Patent 300® Company Report is not just about lists and numbers. It’s a deep dive into the world of patent trends, offering insights into patent prosecution statistics, technology breakdowns, and even metrics on outside counsel costs. This level of detail is invaluable in crafting a strategy that is not only responsive but also proactive in the face of evolving IP landscapes.

Download and Transform Your Approach

Ready to realign your IP strategy? Download your copy of the report HERE. Dive into the details, discover the trends, and start transforming your approach today. The insights you gain might just be the key to unlocking a more refined and effective IP strategy.

Patent Data Reveals Unique Continuation Practice Amongst Patent 300® Companies

Articles, Patent 300, Patent Analytics , , , ,

By Rocky Berndsen, Head of Analytics

Continuation practice in US patent law refers to a procedure where an applicant files a subsequent application based on the disclosure of a prior non-provisional application, while the prior application is still pending.  This strategy can be used for various reasons, such as refining claims, pursuing different scopes of protection, or keeping a patent family alive as the business strategy or technology develops.  The Patent 300® data, focusing on the highest and lowest percentages of patents issued in 2023 that were continuations, provides fascinating insights into the innovation and patenting strategies of top companies.

Strategic Use of Continuation Practice Found in Numerous Industries

The chart above indicates that companies like Sonos, Edwards Life Sciences, and Ebay lead with the highest continuation percentages.  For example, the data shows that 88% of Sonos’ patents issuing in 2023 were continuation applications.  This approach suggests a targeted approach to innovation, where companies are keen on fortifying their market position by building robust patent portfolios around their core products and services.  Continuation practice allows these companies to create a thicket of patents, making it harder for competitors to navigate without infringing.  It also provides them the flexibility to adapt to technological advancements and market changes by updating or expanding their patent claims.

Moreover, continuation practice might be indicative of a strategic layering of patent protection that enables companies to keep certain innovations under initial protection while testing the market or developing further improvements.  For companies like Palantir and Dolby, whose products involve complex software or hardware, the ability to file continuations means they may have the ability to continually update their patent claims to cover the latest iterations of their technology.

Continuation applications can also serve as a legal strategy to keep competitors uncertain about the final form of the patent claims, which could deter potential infringement or at least make it more difficult for competitors to design around an applicant’s patent portfolio.

Why are some companies not filing many continuation applications at all?

The Patent 300® data also reveals a set of companies that utilize continuation practices minimally in their patenting efforts.  Notably, this list includes a significant number of automotive manufacturers, highlighted above, such as Subaru, Mazda, and Honda, all showing low continuation percentages.  This pattern could suggest a distinct approach to portfolio management within the automotive industry, where innovation is rapid and product development cycles are aligned with manufacturing and release schedules.

Another reason for the minimal use of continuation practice could be budgetary constraints.  Continuation applications incur additional costs, not just in filing fees but also in legal and administrative expenses over time.  For some companies, the cost of maintaining a high number of continuations may not justify the potential benefits.  Some companies may opt to instead focus on obtaining patents for newly developed technologies.

Additionally, the strategy behind claims could influence the use of continuation practice.  Companies may choose to file comprehensive initial patent applications with broad claims to cover their inventions fully from the outset.  This approach could reduce the need for subsequent continuation applications to refine or broaden the scope of the original claims.  Some companies may prioritize filing detailed applications that anticipate future product developments, thereby lessening the need for continuations.

Moreover, the breadth of patenting may reflect an applicant’s innovation strategy.  Companies with a wider range of products and services may prefer to obtain a broader spread of original patents rather than deepening the protection around a narrower technology area through continuations.  This approach can create a more extensive barrier to entry for competitors across a wider technology landscape.  Automotive companies, with their frequent iterations of vehicle models and technologies, might find more value in creating a broad patent portfolio that covers a range of innovations rather than focusing on continuing applications for specific technologies.

In sum, the Patent 300® data offers a revealing glimpse into the nuanced strategies behind continuation practices in patent law.  While certain companies leverage this mechanism to build a dense web of protection around key products, adapting to market and technological shifts, others in sectors like automotive opt for a broader innovation footprint, potentially driven by cost considerations, a preference for comprehensive initial filings, or the strategic spread of their patent efforts across a wider range of technologies.  These divergent approaches underscore the complexity of IP management, where each applicant crafts a strategy aligned with its business goals, market position, and the dynamic landscape of technological advancement.  The data not only reflects the tactical choices of individual companies but also illustrates broader industry trends in patenting, revealing the careful balance between depth and breadth in securing intellectual property rights.

Inside the European Patent Revolution: An Analysis of Emerging Unitary Patent Data

Articles, General, Patent Analytics , , ,

Inside the European Patent Revolution: An Analysis of Emerging Unitary Patent Data

By Ayana Marshall, Patent Data Analyst

Brief Introduction to the Unitary Patent System

Launched on June 1, 2023, the Unitary Patent System, managed by the European Patent Office (EPO), simplifies patent protection across participating European Union (EU) member states.  Replacing the need for separate validations in each state, it allows a single application and fee for protection in all participating countries.  Based on the European Patent Convention (EPC), the system enables patent holders to seek uniform protection post-grant in 17 initial EU member states.  The Unitary Patent is described as a “European patent with unitary effect”.  The system includes the Unified Patent Court (UPC), comprising judges from participating states, adjudicating on Unitary and European patent infringements and validity.  This system signifies a streamlined approach for patent protection in the EU.1-5

Trends in Unitary Patent Registrations

The European Patent Office (EPO) has compiled and shared data from the launch of the Unitary Patent System up to January 15, 2024.  This includes various statistics and insights into how the system has been utilized.  The following discussion will delve into the key elements and findings from this data set.

Requests for Unitary Effect

The data above reveals that the Unitary Patent System received 18,273 requests for unitary effect, with 17,733 successfully registered as patents.  Additionally, the uptake rate for the system in 2024 stands at 17.3%.  This statistic represents the proportion of total requests that resulted in registered patents within the specified timeframe.6

The chart above tracks unitary patent request trends from December 2022 to December 2023.  Monthly request volumes, shown via bars, are aligned with the left vertical axis.  The right axis and line graph represent the cumulative total of requests.

From December 2022 to June 2023, the chart shows a rise in monthly requests for unitary patents, starting below 1,000 and reaching around 2,000 by May with a peak of almost 3,000 in June 2023.  July 2023 through September 2023 saw a decline in requests for unitary effect followed by a slight increase of just over 2,000 in October 2023.  There was a subsequent decline to approximately 4,000 by December 2023.  This illustrates the evolving interest and engagement with the Unitary Patent system over the year.  The cumulative line shows a consistent and steady upward trajectory throughout the year, reflecting the addition of each month’s new requests to the total count.  Starting at almost zero in December 2022, the cumulative count surpasses 20,000 by December 2023.  This upward trend suggests growing interest in and engagement with the Unitary Patent system over the year.

Top 25 Companies (Proprietors)

The chart above displays the number of unitary patent requests filed by the top 25 companies.  The bars are color-coded to represent different regions: EPO states, the US, Japan, China, Korea, and Others.  Johnson & Johnson holds the top position in terms of requests with the highest tally, followed by Siemens AG trailing by a narrow margin.  Both corporations submitted requests in the mid-two-hundreds.  Similarly, Qualcomm, Inc.  and Samsung Group exhibit parallel levels of requests, showcasing comparable engagement in the unitary patent application process.  The chart demonstrates a diversity of companies across different regions, with several companies from EPO states and the US occupying the top spots, while companies from Japan, China, and Korea also feature prominently, although with fewer requests.

Origin of Proprietors

The map above illustrates the geographic distribution of patent proprietors, with Europe and North America exhibiting higher volumes of requests.  Europe is particularly prominent, with requests ranging between 3,000 to 4,000, while the United States shows a lower range of approximately 2,000 to 3,000 requests.

WIPO’s Technology Fields (IPC)

Medical technology and electrical machinery are the most represented technology fields, suggesting robust activity and interest in these areas.  The technology fields are classified by the International Patent Classification (IPC) system, detailing the distribution of unitary patent requests across various sectors.  The size of each block in the image corresponds to the number of requests in that technology field, with larger blocks indicating more requests.  The technology fields include Medical technology, Computer technology, Pharmaceuticals, Civil engineering, Transport, Measurement, ‘Machine tools, Handling, and Other special machines.

Each technology field in the image above is quantified with a count and percentage, indicating its share of unitary patent requests.  Medical technology leads with 2,135 requests, accounting for 11.7% of the total.  Civil engineering, Transport, and Other special machines,  also feature significantly with 1080 (5.9%), 1,000 (5.5%), and 971 (5.3%) requests respectively.  Other fields like Computer Technology and Handling show smaller proportions, with 792 (4.3%) and 756 (4.1%) requests.  The distribution of requests across these fields suggests a varied interest in unitary patent protection across different technology sectors.

Status of Registration

The status of registration represents the proportions of unitary patent applications in each stage of the registration process.  The chart above quantifies and categorizes unitary patents according to their registration status of registered, pending, and rejection.  Dominating the chart is the registered category with 17,733 cases, accounting for 97.0% of the total, while pending applications comprise 2.8% with 509 cases followed by the 23 (0.1%) cases that were withdrawn.  The rejected category, representing the smallest segment, includes only 8 cases, making up a 0.04% of the total.  This chart highlights the number of successful registrations in the unitary patent system.

Translation and Procedural Languages

Data on translation and procedural languages used reveals that English is commonly used for both, with German and French also being used.  English is used in 73.3% of procedural languages, a significant lead over German and French.  Spanish is the mostly commonly used translation language outpacing English by a narrow margin.

In summary, the consolidated data provides insight into the unitary patent system as it currently stands.  It appears to indicate active participation across various technological sectors, a high rate of patent registrations, and a wide geographic distribution of proprietors.  The diverse origins of the applicants appear to highlight the system’s potential global appeal, and the significant majority of finalized registrations appear to suggest its efficiency.  These details offer an understanding of how the system is being used, positioning it as a potentially key mechanism for safeguarding modern innovations.  The detailed breakdown of request origins, technology fields, and registration statuses offers stakeholders an understanding of the system’s current scope and functionality.

For those interested in accessing customized analytics, contact Harrity Analytics today!

—

Stay tuned for more insights and analyses from Harrity Analytics, as we continue to explore the ever-evolving world of patents and innovation.

  1. https://www.epo.org/en/applying/european/unitary/unitary-patent
  2. https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guide-up/2022/uppg_a_v.html#:~:text=32The%20primary%20aim%20of,obtaining%2C%20maintaining%20and%20managing%20them.
  3. https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en
  4. https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guide-up/2022/uppg_a_iii_1.html
  5. https://www.epo.org/en/applying/european/unitary
  6. https://www.epo.org/en/about-us/statistics/statistics-centre#/unitary-patent
  7. All images were obtained from https://www.epo.org/en/about-us/statistics/statistics-centre#/unitary-patent

 

 

Enhancing Patent Drafting: The Essential Role of Claim-Figure Mapping

Articles, Practical Patents, Team , , ,

Welcome back to another edition of the Practical Patents series. This week Neil Kardos brings his seasoned perspective to an often-overlooked yet pivotal aspect of drafting: the strategic alignment of claims with figures in patent applications.

Neil emphasizes the importance of creating a mapping between the figures and claims in a patent application. This step, often overlooked, is crucial in ensuring a coherent and comprehensive patent specification. By mapping each figure to the claims they support, patent drafters can establish a clear connection, laying the groundwork for a well-structured specification.

The beauty of this approach lies in its simplicity and efficacy. When you start working on your figures, Neil advises, make it a point to identify which claims each figure relates to. This mapping acts as a guide, ensuring every claim has a corresponding figure where it can be effectively described. If you find a claim that doesn’t neatly align with any of the figures, it’s a clear sign that you need to either introduce a new figure or revise an existing one.

This proactive strategy offers two significant benefits. Firstly, it eliminates the risk of ending up with unsupported claims in your patent application – a common pitfall that can lead to lengthy revisions or, worse, a weakened patent. Secondly, it serves as a remedy for writer’s block. Knowing exactly what to write for each figure can streamline the drafting process, making it more efficient and less daunting.

Neil warns of the pitfalls of neglecting this step. Without pre-mapping your claims to figures, you might find yourself with a draft specification and unsupported claims. At this juncture, the options are limited and unappealing: either retrofit your figures (and consequently, the specification) to accommodate the orphaned claims or force them into sections where they don’t quite belong. Both scenarios lead to a disjointed and potentially weaker patent application.

In summary, Neil’s advice is straightforward yet powerful: map your claims to your figures before diving into the specification. This method not only saves time but also ensures that each element of your patent application is well-supported and clearly articulated.

Stay tuned for more insightful tips and tricks from Neil in our Practical Patents series! Until next time, happy patenting!

Note: This blog post is based on the opinions and observations of the author and should not be considered legal advice. Consult a qualified patent attorney for specific guidance on patent application drafting.

Want more tips? Check out other Practical Patents videos with Neil Kardos here!

Analyzing Technology Trends from the 2024 Patent 300® List

Patent 300, Patent Analytics , , , ,

Harrity Analytics is proud to announce the release of the 2024 Patent 300® List, an exclusive ranking of the top 300 companies, organizations, and universities obtaining US utility patents. This year’s list offers a comprehensive view of the intellectual property landscape and highlights the innovative strides made by leading technology firms.

The Top 15 Innovators of 2023 have showcased their commitment to innovation, collectively accounting for 16% of the 312,563 total utility patents issued. Despite a 3% drop from the previous year, these organizations have continued to push the boundaries of technology and innovation. Take a look at the top technology areas obtaining patents over the last 12 months.

Electronics and Semiconductors: The Front Runners
Samsung leads the pack with a staggering 9,036 patents, doubling the amount secured by the second-place LG. This indicates a strong focus on advancing consumer electronics, mobile communication technologies, and the underlying semiconductor technology. The emphasis on semiconductors is further highlighted by the presence of TSMC and Qualcomm in the top ranks, underlining the critical importance of these components in a multitude of devices.

Cloud, Software, and AI: The Digital Backbone
IBM, ranking third, along with Alphabet and Apple, emphasize the growing significance of cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and software innovation. These patents reflect not only their prowess in hardware but also their forward-thinking in the realms of software and services.

Optics, Imaging, and Automotive: Enhancing Vision and Mobility
Canon’s strong showing indicates a continued excellence in optics and imaging, a field that’s increasingly intersecting with automotive technologies, as seen with the presence of companies like Alphabet and Huawei. Such innovations are crucial for advancements in autonomous vehicles and connected mobility solutions.

Aerospace and Defense: Protecting and Exploring New Frontiers
Raytheon Technologies, known for its expertise in aerospace and defense, has maintained its position, signaling ongoing advancements in technologies critical for national security and exploration.

The Global Technology Landscape
The geographical diversity among the top 15 innovators, with companies from the United States, South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan, underscores the global nature of technological advancement and the interplay of different markets in driving innovation.

The 2024 Patent 300® List by Harrity Analytics not only celebrates the achievements of these innovators but also provides insights into the technology trends shaping our future. We invite industry professionals, analysts, and technology enthusiasts to delve deeper into our findings to understand the direction of innovation and its implications for the global market.

For a detailed exploration of the Patent 300® List and to gain more insights into these trends, visit our interactive Patent 300® Dashboard here.

For those interested in accessing customized analytics, contact Harrity Analytics today!

—

Stay tuned for more insights and analyses from Harrity Analytics, as we continue to explore the ever-evolving world of patents and innovation.

 

Elevating Patent Application Efficiency: The Case for a Claims-First Approach

Articles, Practical Patents, Team , , ,

Welcome to another installment of the Practical Patents series, where we delve into the art and science of patent drafting. Today, we’re exploring a provocative statement by Neil Kardos, an experienced patent attorney and advocate for strategic patenting: “If you’re not drafting claims, then figures, then the specification in that order, you’re doing it wrong.”

At first glance, this assertion seems to challenge conventional wisdom. Traditionally, many practitioners draft the figures and specifications first, leaving the claims for last. However, Neil’s approach, honed through experimentation and practice, suggests a radical departure from this norm.

Traditionally, the process begins with drafting detailed figures and a comprehensive specification. The rationale? It’s believed that having a clear visual and descriptive foundation paves the way for more precise claims. However, Neil’s experience tells a different story.

Neil discovered that this traditional method often necessitated significant rework. Terminology used in the specification might not align with the nuanced language of claim drafting. Questions arise: should it be “one or more” or “at least one”? “Multiple” or “a plurality”? Furthermore, naming conventions in the specification might not resonate with the intricate requirements of claim language, leading to a laborious cycle of revision and alignment between the claims, figures, and specification.

Advantages of a Claims-First Approach

  1. Clarity in Novelty and Non-Obviousness: Drafting claims first forces a focus on the invention’s novel aspects. It lays bare the innovative heart of the patent, guiding the subsequent detailing in figures and specifications.
  2. Efficiency in Drafting: By starting with claims, Neil found that subsequent steps became more streamlined. The figures and specification could be tailored to support the claims, reducing the need for iterative revisions.
  3. Strategic Focus: This approach ensures that the specification and figures emphasize the invention’s most crucial aspects, enhancing the patent’s overall strength.

Neil’s method turns traditional patent drafting on its head, emphasizing a strategic, claims-first approach. While it may not be a one-size-fits-all solution, it certainly provides food for thought for anyone involved in the patenting process.

Don’t forget to come back for more tips in the next installment of the Practical Patents Series. Until next time, happy patenting!

Note: This blog post is based on the opinions and observations of the author and should not be considered legal advice. Consult a qualified patent attorney for specific guidance on patent application drafting.

Want more tips? Check out other Practical Patents videos with Neil Kardos here!

Elevating the Craft of Inventor Interviews

Articles, Practical Patents, Team , , ,

Navigating inventor interviews without a robust disclosure document can be a daunting task for even the most experienced patent professionals. In this week’s Practical Patent series, Neil Kardos shares invaluable tips for transforming these challenges into opportunities for deeper understanding and more comprehensive patent applications.

Tip #1: Record the Call

Recording inventor interviews is a game-changer. It allows patent professionals to immerse themselves in the conversation, fully absorbing the inventor’s insights without the distraction of note-taking. This approach ensures no crucial detail is overlooked, capturing the essence of the invention in its entirety.

Tip #2: Use a Structured Question Checklist

Neil emphasizes the importance of a structured approach, beginning with high-level questions to grasp the overall concept before delving into the finer details. This technique not only clarifies the invention’s framework but also reveals its unique aspects and potential improvements.

The Kardos Questionnaire: Your Blueprint for Success

  1. Identifying the Problem: Understanding the specific issue the invention aims to solve sets the stage for assessing its significance and market relevance.
  2. Summarizing the Solution: This helps in evaluating the innovation’s practicality and its effectiveness in addressing the identified problem.
  3. Exploring Existing Solutions: Knowing what’s already out there highlights the invention’s unique selling points and potential competitive advantages.
  4. Comparing the Invention: This comparison sheds light on why and how the new invention stands out in the existing market landscape.
  5. Uncovering Additional Benefits: Often, inventions have secondary advantages that can broaden their appeal and marketability.
  6. Identifying Novelty: Pinpointing the novel aspects of an invention is crucial for determining its patentability.
  7. Assessing Business Value: Understanding which elements of the invention hold the most commercial potential can guide strategic patent drafting.

For process inventions, a step-by-step walkthrough reveals the intricacies of the method, while mechanical inventions benefit from a detailed analysis of component interrelations. Brainstorming sessions about enhancements and alternatives further refine the invention’s scope and applicability.

Neil’s approach culminates with an open-ended query, inviting any additional insights or overlooked aspects, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the invention.

By adopting these strategies, patent professionals can adeptly navigate inventor interviews, laying a solid foundation for robust and defensible patent applications.

Don’t forget to come back for more tips in the next installment of the Practical Patents Series. Until next time, happy patenting!

Note: This blog post is based on the opinions and observations of the author and should not be considered legal advice. Consult a qualified patent attorney for specific guidance on patent application drafting.

Want more tips? Check out other Practical Patents videos with Neil Kardos here!

Harrity Recognized as an Inclusive Workplace by Best Companies Group

Diversity, Firm News, General, Team , , , ,

Harrity & Harrity, LLP Recognized as a Top Inclusive Workplace by Best Companies Group

January 4, 2024 – Harrity & Harrity, LLP, a leading patent law firm based out of Fairfax, VA, is honored to announce its recognition as a Top Inclusive Workplace by Best Companies Group and COLOR Magazine for 2023. This prestigious acknowledgment highlights Harrity & Harrity’s unwavering commitment to creating a diverse, inclusive, and welcoming work environment.

The Top Inclusive Workplace Program, initiated by Best Companies Group in partnership with COLOR Magazine, evaluates organizations on various aspects of workplace inclusivity, such as inclusion, belonging, psychological safety, community, and purpose. Harrity & Harrity’s approach to fostering an inclusive workplace aligns perfectly with these criteria, as the firm continuously implements initiatives and policies that encourage diversity and belonging.

“Our firm believes in the immense value of a diverse workforce and the positive impact it has on our services and innovation,” said Managing Partner Paul Harrity. “We are dedicated to creating an environment where every member of our team feels valued, heard, and empowered to contribute their unique perspectives.”

This recognition is not merely an accolade but a testament to Harrity & Harrity’s significant efforts in ensuring all employees, regardless of their background, feel included and engaged. This commitment has not only enhanced employee satisfaction and retention but has also contributed positively to the firm’s brand recognition and reputation within the patent law field.

The firm’s diverse and inclusive culture serves as a beacon in the industry, demonstrating the benefits of prioritizing belonging and inclusivity in the workplace. “We are proud to set an example in the legal industry and will continue to advocate for and implement practices that promote inclusivity,” Harrity added.

Harrity & Harrity looks forward to continuing its progress in fostering an inclusive work environment and is excited about the positive impacts this will have on both its team and clients. The firm will be celebrated alongside other recipients in the Winter 2024 Top Inclusive Workplaces digital publication by Best Companies Group and COLOR Magazine.

For more information about Harrity & Harrity’s diversity initiatives and services, please visit harrityllp.com/diversity.

**About Harrity & Harrity, LLP**

Harrity & Harrity, LLP is a boutique patent law firm specializing in electrical, mechanical, and computer technologies. Based in the Washington, D.C. area, the firm is committed to fostering an innovative, progressive, and inclusive workplace. With a nationally dispersed remote team of skilled patent attorneys, patent agents, and support staff, Harrity & Harrity is at the forefront of providing high-quality, efficient, and automated patent services.

 

AI Prompts Do Not Compromise Attorney Confidentiality Obligations

Articles, General, Team , , , ,

In a detailed article on IPWatchdog, Harrity attorney Alexander Zajac provides a nuanced analysis of how the use of large language models (LLMs) aligns with the confidentiality obligations of attorneys. Addressing the concerns of IP attorneys about the remote storage of LLM queries, he compares this to the routine use of web search engines and cloud storage, which also involve sharing queries with third-party servers.

Alex scrutinizes the data retention policies of Google and OpenAI, explaining how they collect and use data, and how users can opt for more privacy. He emphasizes that if standard digital tools like email and cloud storage are trusted for confidential information, then the robust security measures of Google and OpenAI should be equally reliable. He suggests that attorneys can adjust settings on these platforms to enhance privacy, rather than avoiding LLMs altogether.

This thoughtful exploration by Alex sheds light on the intersection of technology and legal ethics, urging the legal community to adapt to technological advancements while maintaining client confidentiality. To delve into the specifics of these policies and comprehensive perspectives on AI as a legal resource, read the full article on IPWatchdog HERE.