BarbriSFCourseDetails
  • videocam On-Demand
  • signal_cellular_alt Intermediate
  • card_travel Patent
  • schedule 90 minutes

Means Plus Function Patent Claims: New USPTO Guidance, Implications for Patent Counsel and Applicants

$347.00

This course is $0 with these passes:

BarbriPdBannerMessage

Description

In March 2024, the USPTO issued guidance for examining patent claims with MPF and step-plus-function limitations under Section 112(f). The guidance discussed interpretation of MPF claims under Section 112(f), which permits drafters to "recite a function in a claim and rely on the specification for the corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform the function and equivalents to the disclosed structure, material, or acts."

The guidance instructs examiners to use a three-prong test to determine if Section 112(f) is involved. The guidance highlights claim interpretation and the importance of a clear record as well as the need to provide sufficient support to meet the requirements of definiteness, written description, and enablement.

Nearly all technological fields use MPF claiming. MPF claims can provide more protection for patent applicants than other claims. Counsel should keep in mind how claims are framed under Section 112(f), especially with MPF claims. It is essential for patent counsel to include adequate and precise descriptions in the patent specification to support the claimed functions.

Listen as our authoritative panel of patent attorneys examines MPF claims and the USPTO's recent guidance. The panel will discuss the implications of the guidance for patent counsel and applicants. The panel will offer best practices to overcome the challenges of MPF claims and leverage 112(f) and functional claims.

Presented By

Joanna T. Brougher
Owner & Principal
BioPharma Law Group, PLLC

Ms. Brougher is a patent attorney who focuses on all aspects of services related to patents in the areas of biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and medical devices, including patentability opinions, due diligence, patent drafting, domestic and foreign patent prosecution, development and management of patent portfolios, and general client counseling during all phases of a product’s lifecycle, from concept to commercialization.


 


Her patent experience covers a variety of complex and innovative inventions involving small molecule drugs, biologics, cell-based technologies, compositions, drug formulations and drug delivery systems, immunotherapeutics, medical devices, diagnostic tests, nanotechnology, and immunology, particularly vaccines and antibodies. Ms. Brougher also has experience counseling clients on the Hatch-Waxman Act and is monitoring developments involving biosimilars under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act.

Thomas L. Irving
Partner
Marbury Law Group

Mr. Irving has 47 years of experience in the field of IP law. His practice includes due diligence, patent prosecution, reissue and reexamination, patent interferences, and counseling, including prelitigation, Orange Book listings of patents covering FDA-approved drugs, and infringement and validity analysis in the chemical fields, as well as litigation. He has served as lead counsel in many patent interferences.

Michelle E. O'Brien
Partner, Head of Life Sciences
Marbury Law Group

Ms. O’Brien has more than 20 years of experience representing domestic and foreign clients of all sizes in patent procurement, litigation, and client counseling, with a particular emphasis on chemical, biochemical, and pharmaceutical technologies. Exemplary areas of her technical expertise include polymer chemistry; ceramics; glass; food chemistry; cosmetics; paper products; adhesives; and pharmaceutical products, including new chemical entities and formulations and novel solid forms, including polymorphs, cocrystals, and amorphous forms of compounds.

Credit Information
  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.


  • Live Online


    On Demand

Date + Time

  • event

    Monday, May 20, 2024

  • schedule

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  1. MPF claims and the benefits of using them
  2. USPTO guidance
  3. Section 112(f) three-prong analysis
  4. Best practices

The panel will review these and other noteworthy issues:

  • What are the benefits and limitations of using MPF patent claims?
  • What are the potential implications of the USPTO's decision in Xencor?
  • What are the alternatives if MPF is not available?