Patrick Muffo
Shareholder
Joined Patexia at Aug 10, 2016
Shareholder at Polsinelli
Patrick Muffo
Apr 28, 2017
Written by Patrick Muffo & Kevin Mahoney, Seyfarth Shaw Every day, companies unknowingly give up intellectual property and trade secrets which they could have otherwise protected with simple processes. Poor R&D policies may not capture patent rights on a company invention. A faulty or simply outdated employment agreement may not protect... Read More
Patrick Muffo
Feb 16, 2017
The admissibility of evidence is an important consideration for many PTAB proceedings. The procedures for objecting to and admitting evidence can be nuanced and, as often is the case with the PTAB, the devil is in the details. Panels are also quick to point out that non-precedential decisions from other... Read More
Patrick Muffo
Feb 2, 2017
A patentee has several options for responding to a Petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) or Covered Business Method (“CBM”) petition. The patent owner can optionally file a Preliminary Response arguing against institution on substantive grounds, or the patent owner can attack the petition procedurally, such as by arguing the... Read More
Patrick Muffo
Jan 26, 2017
Inventions directed to “pure software” have arguably had the most difficult time surviving Alice challenges. Software is often characterized as an “abstract idea” without more, and the inventive step requirement in Alice seems difficult to prove absent a significant technological advancement. The Northern District of Georgia recently rejected its special... Read More
Patrick Muffo
Jan 18, 2017
The doctrine of definiteness requires a patent to clearly state what the inventor considers to be their invention. Of course, the PTAB interprets various claim terms when determining whether a prior art reference anticipates or renders obvious a particular claim. So what happens when an accused infringer challenges a claim... Read More
Patrick Muffo
Nov 30, 2016
Courts have decided many recent Alice challenges based on whether the invention at hand is “physical” or not. Others determine patent-eligibility based on whether a human can practice the invention in their mind, or with pen and paper. Still others challenge patent-eligibility by defining the invention and dismissing other elements... Read More