Bangalore scientists break bacteria's resistance to antibiotics

BANGALORE: Ever wondered why doctors increase the dosage of your medicine even when the nature of infection is the same as the previous time? This happens because infection-causing bacteria have mechanisms that resist drugs, just like our bodies resist bacteria.

However, these bacteria have today become so resistant to antibiotics that even increased dosage is having little effect.

While the international research community has pondered over many options to overcome this, a team of Bangalore-based scientists has developed a novel way to attack these bacteria, which gives the organisms little chance of developing resistance.

 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Bangalore-scientists-break-bacterias-resistance-to-antibiotics/articleshow/38102494.cms

INDIAN PO’S DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES AGAINST NON-PCT INDIAN PATENT APPLICANTS

This piece of writing tries to put our Readers in a better position to understand the mandatory provisions of the Request For Examination (RFE) practice under the Indian Patent Law. In India, the mere filing of an application for an invention does not essentially mean that the applicant is requesting the patent office for examination. An applicant should file an RFE within 48 months from the priority date of the application or from the filing date of the application, whichever is earlier (Rule 24 B, Patent Rules 2003).

Such a request can be made by the applicant himself or by any other interested person (section 11B, Indian Patent Act 1970). If no such request is made within the stipulated period of time then the application is deemed to be withdrawn.

http://www.bananaip.com/sinapse-blog/2014/07/indian-pos-discriminatory-practices-against-non-pct-indian-patent-applicants.html

Sonics Announces Patent Non-Assert Agreement With Qualcomm

MILPITAS, Calif., July 1, 2014  Sonics, Inc. he world's foremost supplier of on-chip network (NoC) technologies and services, today announced that it has entered into a patent non-assert agreement with Qualcomm.

"Sonics is pleased to announce that it has entered into a Patent Non-Assert Agreement with Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., effective as of March 24, 2014, regarding U.S. Patents 7,574,629 and 7,769,0271." said Grant Pierce, CEO of Sonics, Inc.  This follows the dismissal by Arteris, Inc. of its claims that Sonics directly and indirectly infringes the patents , which are now owned by Qualcomm.

All remaining claims in the case involving these patents have been dismissed pursuant to a joint motion by Qualcomm and Sonics. Given that Arteris has sold all of its patents to Qualcomm , Sonics believes this provides some additional protection from future claims by Qualcomm and Arteris.

Pierce continued, "As we have said before, Sonics will continue to seek protection for its broad patent portfolio, including patents that were invented and granted in the U.S., as outlined in Sonics' complaint , Complaint for Patent Infringement (Sonics v. Arteris), of November 1, 2011. We are committed to seeing this time consuming process through to its completion."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sonics-announces-patent-non-assert-agreement-with-qualcomm-2014-07-01

Indefiniteness Standard During Patent Prosecution: In re Packard

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision upholding an examiner’sindefiniteness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), invoking the standard from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure(MPEP).  In re Packard, Case No. 13-1204 (Fed. Cir., May 6, 2014) (per curium) (O’Malley, J., Plager, J., Taranto, J.) (Plager, J., concurring).

This is a case of first impression for the Federal Circuit and goes to the standard for indefiniteness to be applied by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) when examining application claims.

The PTAB applied the standard set forth in MPEP § 2173.05(e), namely, “[a] claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear.”  Packard appealed, arguing that the PTAB should have applied the “insoluably ambiguous” standard.

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/indefiniteness-standard-during-patent-prosecution-re-packard