#patentlaw

[the-fact-site]

The creator of fidget spinners patented her invention, but in 2005 the patent was surrendered as she could not afford the $400 renewal fee. #FACT

[ippraesidium]

Why Patent Applications Get Rejected in India

Many patent applications in India face objections not because the invention is weak, but because the application is not prepared strategically. Think of a patent application like a blueprint for a house—if key details are missing or unclear, approval becomes much harder. Learn the most common patent rejection reasons in India and practical ways to overcome them in our latest guide.

Read more: https://praesidiumip.com/blog/patent-rejection-reasons-in-india-and-how-to-overcome-them

[genesede]

Europe’s Leading Patent Law Firms — 2026 ranking

🏆 Europe’s Leading Patent Law Firms 2026 The Financial Times, in cooperation with Statista, has published its latest ranking. A total of 222 patent law firms from across Europe have been recognised, based on around 3,000 recommendations from clients, patent attorneys and experts working in corporate IP departments. In addition to the overall ranking, firms were recognised across six specialist fields, including IT & Software, Electrical Engineering, Biotechnology, Chemistry and Mechanical Engineering. We warmly congratulate all the firms included in this year’s ranking! The results highlight the diversity, expertise and strength of Europe’s IP landscape. 👉 View the complete ranking here: https://www.ft.com/content/76489703-44e6-458e-874a-0a4114405819

[ippraesidium]

Can a Poorly Drafted Patent Application Be Rejected?

🚨 Did you know? Even a brilliant invention can face rejection if the patent application is poorly drafted.

A weak patent application with unclear descriptions, incomplete technical details, or poorly written claims can lead to objections, delays, or even rejection. Professional patent drafting helps protect your innovation by ensuring your application is accurate, comprehensive, and legally strong.

Learn the common reasons why patent applications get rejected and how expert drafting can improve your chances of approval.

🔗 Read the full blog: https://praesidiumip.com/blog/can-a-poorly-drafted-patent-application-be-rejected

[gideonkorrell]

Gideon Korrell Discusses the Federal Circuit’s Guidance in Barry v. DePuy Synthes

Patent lawsuits often involve technical information, expert witnesses, and complex legal issues. One recent case that has received attention is Barry v. DePuy Synthes. In this case, the Federal Circuit provided important guidance about the difference between a judge’s role under Daubert and a jury’s role in deciding facts.

Gideon Korrell discusses this case as an example of how courts can review expert evidence while still allowing juries to make decisions about disputed facts.

Understanding the Barry v. DePuy Synthes Decision

The case of Barry v. DePuy Synthes involved questions about patent validity and the use of expert testimony. Like many patent cases, expert witnesses played an important role in explaining technical information and helping the court understand the evidence.

One of the main issues was whether certain expert opinions should be excluded under the standards set by Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. The Daubert standard requires judges to act as gatekeepers by making sure expert testimony is reliable and relevant before it is presented to a jury.

The Federal Circuit looked at how much authority a court should have when reviewing expert testimony and whether disagreements about evidence should be decided by a judge or left to a jury.

The Difference Between Gatekeeping and Factfinding

One of the most important lessons from this case is the difference between admissibility and credibility.

According to Gideon Korrell, judges are responsible for deciding whether expert testimony meets basic standards of reliability. However, once that testimony meets those standards, questions about how convincing the expert’s opinions are should usually be decided by the jury.

The Federal Circuit explained that courts should not exclude expert testimony simply because another expert has a different opinion. In many situations, these differences create factual disputes that juries are expected to evaluate and resolve.

This distinction helps keep a proper balance between the judge’s oversight role and the jury’s role in the legal process.

Key Takeaways from the Decision

Several important lessons can be learned from the Federal Circuit’s guidance.

1. Judges Should Focus on Reliability

A judge’s job is to determine whether an expert’s methods are reliable and based on accepted principles. Judges are not supposed to decide which expert is right.

2. Juries Decide Between Competing Opinions

When qualified experts offer different views of the evidence, it is usually the jury’s responsibility to decide which opinion is more convincing.

3. Excluding Testimony Should Not Replace a Trial

The decision reminds courts that Daubert should not be used to remove factual disputes from a case when the expert testimony is otherwise acceptable.

4. Patent Cases Require a Careful Balance

Patent cases often involve highly technical subjects. Courts must make sure expert testimony is reliable while still allowing juries to consider different viewpoints and evidence.

Why This Decision Matters

The guidance provided in Barry v. DePuy Synthes may affect how future courts handle expert testimony in patent cases and other complex legal disputes.

For lawyers, the decision shows the importance of building expert opinions on reliable methods and explaining technical topics clearly. For businesses involved in litigation, it serves as a reminder that disagreements between experts are not always resolved before trial.

Instead, many of these disputes may ultimately be decided by a jury after hearing all the evidence.

Conclusion

Gideon Korrell views Barry v. DePuy Synthes as an important reminder that judges and juries have different responsibilities in the legal system. The Federal Circuit made it clear that judges should carefully review expert testimony for reliability, but they should not take over the jury’s role of deciding between competing factual arguments.

As patent cases continue to involve advanced technologies and expert analysis, this decision helps maintain a fair balance between judicial oversight and the jury’s important factfinding role.

[analystipserviceprovider]

WIPO Pearl Update Introduces Over 10,000 Patent-Related Terms

The latest WIPO Pearl update expands the terminology database to over 280,000 validated terms across 10 languages, improving accuracy in patent translation and intellectual property management. The update includes new scientific, legal, and medical terminology, enhanced concept mapping, and contributions from global universities and the World Health Organization. These improvements help inventors, patent professionals, and examiners ensure greater consistency and legal certainty in international patent filings.

[genesede]

🌍 Overview of International and European Patent Agreements Anyone filing or managing patents operates within a complex network of international and European treaties – from the PCT and EPC to the Unified Patent Court (UPC). This overview shows which countries are part of which agreements – and when each treaty entered into force. 👉 View now: [https://www.epo.org/de/legal/international-treaties?utm_campaign=epo-newsletter&utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Newsweaver&utm_term=Stay%20up%20to%20date%20on%20international%20treaties]

[genesede]

📢 Neu: Der PCT-Leitfaden für Anmelder als Webanwendung! Ab dem 31. Oktober 2025 steht die Sonderausgabe des PCT-Leitfadens nun auch online als interaktive Webanwendung zur Verfügung. Diese neue Plattform wurde vom Internationalen Büro der WIPO in Zusammenarbeit mit der EEP-Prüfungskommission und der EPAC-Kammer entwickelt und unterstützt: 🎓 angehende europäische Patentanwälte (EEP) 🏛️ sowie Patentverwalter (EPAC/CEV) bei der Erstellung und Vorbereitung ihrer Schulungsunterlagen. Die Anwendung umfasst: 🔹 Einführungen in die internationale und nationale Phase 🔹 Alle Anhänge und Länderkapitel 🔹 Direkten Zugriff auf Verträge, Ordnungen und Verwaltungsvorschriften nach dem PCT 👉 Jetzt entdecken: https://pctlegal.wipo.int/eGuide/eqe/documents.xhtml #PatentAdministration #PCT #WIPO #IntellectualProperty #PatentLaw #EQE #EPAC #LegalTech #IPManagement #Innovation #EPO enese