The Dolcera Blog

The Tech world is buzzing in 2011. Apple, Android, and Patents seems to the most recurring themes conversations converge too. Apple is a great success story, and literally becoming the apple of everyone’s eye by becoming one of the most valuable companies in the world, consistently innovating and generating higher and higher revenues. They recently posted one of their best quarters ever.

Many see Apple’s rise as a challenger to the Open Innovation theories, and positing that in technology a closed system offers you much more strength and sustainable innovation coming up with products which have completely re-shaped markets.

Of course Apple had a visionary in the form of Steve Jobs, but technologies don’t just develop “magically” and systems don’t just fall into “amazing” perfect tandem on their own. So, we at Dolcera decided to look into what exactly are the sources of Apple’s innovation.

Apple being a very secretive company, it was hard to find a lot of inside information. But one of the best sources of “innovation” data is the legal document which one gets for innovating - a patents. We decided to look at the patents of Apple and get an idea of the true sources of Apple’s innovation.

In our opinion, the key sources of Apple’s innovation are :
1. Expenditure on research,
2. Acquisitions, and
3. Patent Deals
Apple definitely has a strong in-house research. But every time Steve Jobs wished to make one of his “visions” a reality, it often required Apple to go out and spot “sources” which can be acquired, or taken the technology from. Some prime examples are acquisition of Fingerworks which developed the Multi-Touch for iPhone, and technology licensing from LiquidMetal which gave Apple products their great aesthetics among many others.

We have tried to provide a basic story flow in the visual below.

We are also conducting web seminars to detail on the findings of our research, and how you too can do the same. For details contact us at - info@dolcera.com

 Author: Pramath Malik

Tweet  Delicious  Digg  Facebook 

Google Inc., the Internet giant, has signed a $12.5 billion agreement to acquire Motorola Mobility, the legendary mobile phone and set-top box manufacturer. As per the agreement, Google will pay $40 per share in cash, which was a 63% premium to the closing price of Motorola Mobility shares on August 12, 2011.

But what is impressive about the deal is the purpose behind it. After all, Google generates its revenue from searches i.e. it auctions off search words to clients that want to advertise alongside the responses. On the other hand, Motorola Mobility manufactures handsets and set-top boxes that carry TV channels to homes. Interestingly, Motorola Mobility is the No.2 provider of set-top boxes after Cisco.

So why an Internet mogul be interested in acquiring a hardware company?

The key to the story is Android, Google’s OS for mobile devices. At present, Android has surpassed Apple and Nokia smart phones and already has signed deals with 39 handset manufacturers such as Samsung, HTC, LG Electronics, Sony Ericsson, etc. As we can see from this, Google is not just an Internet-based company but is part of the mobile business in full swing. Although Google offers the Android OS for free to handset manufacturers, it is a cynosure when it comes to patent infringement lawsuits. Companies from the likes of Microsoft, Oracle, and Apple have filed multiple lawsuits against Android.

As a result, in a bid to strengthen its patent portfolio, Google has acquired Motorola’s 17,000 patents (Click here for information on Motorola Mobility’s patent portfolio). The acquisition not only eliminates Motorola from being a potential threat in terms of filing a lawsuit but also arms Google so that it can defend itself in lawsuits as well as launch suits of its own.

In a latest turn of events, just last week HTC, the Chinese handset manufacturer, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple. As per the appeal, HTC stated that Apple was infringing nine US patents related to wireless communications and mobile phone displays. The interesting bit is that Google had assigned those patents to HTC and some of those patents it had acquired from Motorola Mobility.

The ownership pathway for the nine patents is shown below.

The first five patents were used to strengthen HTC’s Delaware suit against Apply while the other four have been used for a new lawsuit against apple.

S.No	Patent No.	Title
1	US6473006	Method and apparatus for zoomed display of characters entered from a telephone keypad
2	US6708214	Hypermedia identifier input mode for a mobile communication device
3	US6868283	Technique allowing a status bar user response on a portable device graphic user interface
4	US7289772	Technique allowing a status bar user response on a portable device graphic user interface
5	US7020849	Dynamic display for communication devices
6	US5418524	Method and apparatus for over-the-air upgrading of radio modem application software
7	US5630152	Communication protocol between master and slave device with register information sharing
8	US5630159	Method and apparatus for personal attribute selection having delay management method and apparatus for preference establishment when preferences in a donor device are unavailable
9	US5302947	Method and apparatus for loading a software program from a radio modem into an external computer

Clearly, Google is out to avenge the lawsuits against its adopted child Android and defend itself in any way.

In addition, the other side of the story is the set-top box business, the acquisition of which will facilitate Google becoming a significant supplier of Internet-borne TV content on Android-equipped mobile devices and also generate revenues from TV advertising, which is worth $70 billion.

In all, Google’s deal with Motorola Mobility is not just a defensive action against infringement lawsuits but also a smart move in terms of boosting its ad revenues from Internet-borne TV content.

Author: Charanjeet Singh

Tweet  Delicious  Digg  Facebook 

Microsoft was sued in 2007 by i4i, a company from Canada, or infringing on its patent for an editing tool it co-opted for MS Word. The technology gave Word 2003 and Word 2007 users an improved way to edit XML. In the initial hearings the lower courts ruled Microsoft willfully infringed on the Canadian company i4i’s patent.

Microsoft was ordered to pay i4i damages of $290 million. Also through an injunction it was prevented selling versions of Word containing i4i’s technology.

The case in point is the standard of proof that must be met by the company that challenges the validity of a patent in court. According to the law, the patents which are issued by the Patent Office solely on the basis of supporting information submitted by the patent applicant should be presumed valid. Since the 1980s, however, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees patent appeals, has required a challenge to a patent’s validity be proved by a heightened standard of “clear and convincing evidence,” which was an argument used by i4i and as opposed to the lower “preponderance of evidence” standard routinely applied in civil lawsuits which was used by Microsoft. The issue is far more than a technicality, as it can have far-ranging effects on innovation and technology businesses.

In the court, Microsoft argued that the patent held by i4i is invalid because the invention covered by the patent was already on sale by i4i more than a year before the patent application was even filed. Under the current patent law, a patent cannot be issued in such a situation.

However, in the case of i4i, the USPTO never considered the evidence of this sale in the first place. In this case, i4i itself discarded the evidence and hence itwasn’t available. The lawyers of i4i argued to the jury that since such evidence wasn’t available, Microsoft could not prove its invalidity case under the heightened “clear and convincing” standard. The jury agreed to this argument and an appeal was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.

Microsoft which was backed in this case by many giants like Apple, Facebook, Cisco etc. argues that creativity and innovation should be promoted and that simply patent laws should not govern such cases. They also argued for a change in the law which is being followed by the congress.

Smaller tech companies and venture capital firms, meantime, were rooting for i41. Lawyers for i4i and the Obama administration argued, however, that there’s little point in granting patents to inventors if corporations can simply infringe upon them with impunity.

Loudon Owen, i4i’s chairman said, “The bottom line is whether there’s a robust patent system, and whether or not if you get a patent, it means something. If the law goes the way Microsoft wants it to, it will mean it will be very easy to invalidate patents, which will make it hard to justify why one seeks a patent in the first place.”

In this tussle between a small firm and a giant of the IT industry, the ruling has been in the favor of i4i. Read the supreme court ruling here. This will not only impact Microsoft, but also smart-phone manufacturers and technology developers. With very few patent cases coming through to the supreme court, this ruling would also act as a reference for such legal cases. The decision of the jury increases the confidence of small firms in defining their progressions based on innovation and intellectual property assets.

Tweet  Delicious  Digg  Facebook 

Professors Mark Lemley, Chris Cotropia, and Bhaven Sampat recently released a draft of their new article titled “Do Applicant Patent Citations Matter? Implications for the Presumption of Validity.” [Download Here.]

For the article, the trio analyzed the file histories of 1,500+ utility patents issued in 2007 and compared references used in office action rejections with the list of references cited on the patent cover-pages.  The objective was to figure-out the role of applicant-cited prior-art in the examination process.

Findings: Patent examiners rarely rely on applicant-submitted prior-art when making rejections.  Only 13% of the prior art used in office action rejections was applicant-submitted (despite the fact that 74% of cited references are applicant-submitted). Generally, the study found that examiners “effectively ignored” applicant-submitted prior art regardless of how few or how many references were cited; regardless of the timing of the IDS filing; and regardless of whether the submission included an EPO search reports identifying the references as “X-references.”

Implications: The authors suggest several implications of their findings: (1) That it likely does not make sense to find inequitable conduct when an applicant withholds prior art (since the art would not have been used in a rejection anyway); (2) That the presumption of validity associated with patents may be too strong; and (3) That studies based on patent citations likely lack merit.
There are several rational reasons for examiners to cite their own prior art. Because of the backlog, PCTs, and provisional applications, US examination often begins several years after the application was originally filed.  During that interim, many references become available that were not known at filing.  Thus, it is not surprising that applicants rarely cite 102(e) prior art, but examiners cite loads of it.  There is some reason to think that this “newer” prior art is probably better because of technological developments.  It may also be true that the applicant and examiner references are cited for different purposes — namely, applicants cite references that are generally relevant to the invention while examiners are looking for references that teach each particular element in the filed claims.  A third issue is that applicants tend to modify their claims during prosecution. That modification may make their originally cited art less relevant.

Conclusion: Most of the applicant cited references are ignored by the examiners. So, dont really trust on the citations.

Tweet  Delicious  Digg  Facebook 

What is the PCT?

The PCT is an international treaty which provides a system for filing patent applications and allows you to obtain patents in multiple countries around the world on the basis of a single patent application.

The PCT simplifies the procedure for obtaining patent protection in many countries, making it more efficient and economical for:

(1) users of the patent system (applicants and inventors); and

(2) national Offices.

While the PCT simplifies the patent filing process for you, the ultimate decision to grant a patent rests exclusively with each national or regional patent Office.

PCT Contracting States

The PCT was signed in June 1970, in Washington, D.C., and became operational in June 1978 with 18 Contracting States. The terms Contracting State, PCT country and PCT Member State, are all used interchangeably to identify countries which are party to the PCT system. The PCT now has 141 Contracting States, providing you with near worldwide patent filing coverage. Please consult the website for an updated list of Contracting States.

Role of the International Bureau of WIPO

The staff of WIPO, generally referred to as the International Bureau, is responsible for the international coordination and management of the PCT system. This includes the review, communication, processing and publication of PCT applications and associated documents received by WIPO. In addition to these responsibilities, WIPO also provides regular advice and assistance to PCT Member States, applicants and other interested parties on the advantages and operations of the PCT system.

WIPO regularly promotes and raises awareness of the PCT with a wide range of users, i.e., IP Offices, universities, industry, R & D institutions, attorneys, and the general public, by holding seminars, training courses and similar events on the PCT system in locations around the world.

Why Use the PCT

The PCT is a cornerstone of the international patent system. It provides you with a worldwide system for the simplified filing of patent applications that:

• brings the world within reach;
• postpones major costs and provides you with additional time to consider your various patenting options;
• provides a strong basis for patenting decisions; and
• is used by the world’s major corporations, universities and research institutions when they seek international patent protection.

Brings the World within Reach

A single PCT application has the same legal effect as a national patent application in each of the PCT Contracting States. Without the PCT, you would have to file a separate patent application in each country of interest to you. For a 30-page patent application, the PCT would save you the time, effort and expense of preparing separate applications in various languages containing in total over 4,000 pages. (4,000 is an approximation of the number of pages if an application were to be filed in the separate Contracting States).

Cost and Time Advantages

A major feature of the PCT system is that it delays (and in some cases saves) various costs associated with obtaining patents on a global scale.

In addition to delaying costs, you also benefit from additional time to:

• further develop or market your invention;
• consider and explore your various patenting options;
• find investors, partners and secure funding; and
• investigate the commercial possibilities of your invention.

Translations, National Fees, Agent/Attorney Fees

The initial patenting costs that would be deferred are:

• translations of the patent application (which are highly technical documents) into various national languages;
• official fees charged by national or regional patent Offices; and
• fees for the services of local patent agents or attorneys

Cost Deferral Compared to the Traditional Patent System

If you were to use the traditional patent system, that it is to say, by filing separate patent applications in each country of interest to you, you would incur a significant portion of your patenting costs within one year from the date you filed your local (first) patent application.

In contrast, under the PCT, you have up to 30 months from the priority date to incur the majority of the patenting costs, representing 18 months of additional time when compared to the traditional patent system.

The PCT – Overview of the Process

The PCT process is comprised of the following main steps:

First Patent Application

(1) Filing of a local patent application (in the majority of cases)

International Phase

(2) Filing of a PCT application

(3) International search report (ISR) and written opinion

(4) International publication

(5) Optional supplementary international search

(6) Optional international preliminary examination

National Phase

(7) Processing of the PCT application (2) before national and/or regional patent Offices

Filing of a Local (First) Patent Application

The timeline provides you with a graphical representation of the PCT procedure and sequence. Each description is linked to the red highlighted sequence of events.

Typically, you would prepare your first patent application and file it with your national or regional patent Office. This patent application is commonly referred to as your local application and when in completed form, contains the following elements:

(1) A request (or petition)

(2) A description (also referred to as specification)

(3) One or more claims

(4) An abstract

(5) One or more drawings (where necessary)

Filing of a PCT Application

Based on the contents of your local (first) patent application you would then prepare and file your PCT application. You have up to 12 months from the filing date of your local (first) application to file your PCT application with the receiving Office of your national or regional patent Office. You may also file your PCT application directly with the receiving Office of WIPO if permitted by the national security provisions in your national law. Your PCT application has the same effect as a separate application filed in each PCT country.

International Search Report (ISR) and Written Opinion of the ISA

Each PCT Member State has selected at least one International Searching Authority (ISA) to perform international searches and to establish written opinions for its applicants, referred to in PCT terms as the “competent” International Searching Authority. You will receive, at around 16 months from the filing date of your local application, an international search report (ISR) and a written opinion from a national or regional patent Office that has been appointed as an International Searching Authority (ISA) under the PCT. The ISR will contain citations of patent documents and other technological references relevant to the patentability of your invention. The written opinion complements the ISR by providing a preliminary non-binding patentability assessment of your invention taking into consideration the references contained in the ISR.

International Preliminary Report on Patentability

After having considered the written opinion of the ISA, you may decide not to continue with the assessment of your PCT application and not file a demand for international preliminary examination. In this case, WIPO will attach a cover sheet to this written opinion effectively converting it into the international preliminary report on patentability. The international preliminary report on patentability is available for public inspection 30 months after the priority date of your PCT application (the date of your first-filed local patent application).

International Publication

The International Bureau of WIPO publishes your PCT application on PATENTSCOPE® shortly after 18 months from the priority date of your PCT application. Publication serves to provide technical disclosure of your invention which helps fuel greater technological progress and development.

(optional) - Supplementary International Search

You also have the option of requesting that a supplementary international search be conducted on your PCT application. The request from supplementary international search may be filed anytime prior to the expiry of 19 months from the priority date. The supplementary search is completely optional but may be of interest in cases where a more complete overview of the prior art is desired, particularly in respect of specific languages.

The supplementary international search service is not available across all International Searching Authorities. Those offering this service do so against the payment of a fee.The supplementary international search report prepared by the International Searching Authority should be available by 28 months from the priority date.

(optional) - Filing of a Demand for International Preliminary Examination

This part of the PCT procedure is optional. If you are not entirely satisfied with the contents of the written opinion, you may decide to continue the assessment of your invention under the PCT by filing a demand for international preliminary examination with a national or regional patent Office that has been appointed as an International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA) under the PCT. Each PCT Member State has appointed at least one IPEA to perform international preliminary examinations for its applicants, referred to in PCT terms as the “competent” IPEA.

You have at least 22 months from the priority date of your PCT application to file your demand with the competent IPEA

International Preliminary Report on Patentability

At about 28 months from the priority date, the IPEA will send you an international preliminary report on patentability (Chapter II) containing the opinion of the IPEA for national or regional Offices to use in assessing the patentability of your invention. This report is a non-binding opinion on patentability and is only provided to applicants who have filed a demand for international preliminary examination as described above.

Entry into the National Phase

Entry into the national phase represents the end of the international phase of the PCT procedure and the beginning of the national patent grant procedure. The international preliminary report on patentability (either under Chapter I or Chapter II), which you received during the international phase of the PCT procedure, will help you evaluate your chances of obtaining a patent in the countries of interest to you. The international preliminary report on patentability also provides guidance to each national or regional patent Office on whether a patent should be granted for your invention.

Once in the national phase, your patent application is subject to the patent laws, regulations and practices of each country. Rejections on form and content may not be raised provided that they conform to the requirements of the PCT.

Since its adoption in Washington in 1970, the PCT has enjoyed great success and continued growth. It has a near global membership of 139 Contracting States with millions of inventors, big and small, who fuel the world’s technological advances through the use of the PCT and national patent systems.

The PCT has revolutionized the way in which patents are obtained throughout the world. The search and examination reports, cornerstones of the PCT system, provide you with valuable information on which you can base your business and patenting decisions. The time delay feature of the PCT preserves your patent options, delays costs, giving you additional time to obtain financing and assess commercial, licensing and partnership opportunities.

The PCT helps you obtain patents for your inventions. It is the Smart Patenting Solution – your best option for obtaining patents on a global scale.

–Ashok–

Tweet  Delicious  Digg  Facebook 

Recently, U.S. state of Mississippi settled an antitrust suit with Microsoft Corp for $100 million on Thursday and said businesses, individuals, schools and local government were eligible for a share of the money. Apart from antitrust suit Microsoft was also ordered to pay $521 million to Eolas Technologies, $200 million to a Canadian software firm i4i Ltd and much more to many more companies for patent infringment and offcourse these are all lost battles by Microsoft. Here is the current list of all patent under litigation.

• US5369702 – TECSEC Incorporated – Distributed cryptographic object method
• US6374289 – Backweb Technologies, Ltd. – Distributed client-based data caching system
• US6542814 – Horizon Navigation, Inc. – Methods and apparatus for dynamic point of interest display
• US6195662 – Juxtacomm Technologies Inc. – System for transforming and exchanging data between distributed heterogeneous computer systems
• US6405368 – Method for separate compilation of templates
• US7496854 – Arendi Holding Limited – Method, system and computer readable medium for addressing handling from a computer program
• US6405368 – Method for separate compilation of templates
• US7363592 – Tool group manipulations

Tweet  Delicious  Digg  Facebook 

The objective and target of any organization is growth at 45 degree on x & Y axis through best products, best services etc… with latest innovations. Ever since recession has hit the western market the economy and jobs are melting like never before, chapter 11 filing cases are increasing. After all to run an organization revenue has to be generated. As newspapers across North America and the globe continue to flood with stories of economic downturn and businesses fighting to survive, organizations this month are placing a renewed focus on innovation and revenue generation.

Revenue generation through patent lawsuits is the new trend. 35 patent lawsuits have been filed just in 5 plus month time during 2009, wonder how many more are there. Surely first half of 2009 is not good for Google in terms of lawsuits, total 14 lawsuit are been battled.

Lawsuit filing cases of 2009:

1. Aloft Media, LLC v. Yahoo! Inc. et al
2. Performance Pricing, Inc. v. Google Inc. et al
3. Leader Technologies Inc. v. Facebook Inc.
4. Actus, LLC v. Bank of America Corp. et al
5. Paid Search Engine Tools, LLC v. Google, Inc. et al
6. ESN LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al
7. Heartland Recreational Vehicles LLC v. Forest River Inc
8. Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Google Inc. et al
9. Northeastern University et al v. Google, Inc.,
10. Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al
11. Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc. et al
12. Aloft Media, LLC v. Google, Inc.
13. GraphOn Corporation v. Google Inc.
14. Google, Inc. v. EMSAT Advanced Geo-Location Technology, LLC et al
15. Picsel (Research) Ltd. et al v. Apple Inc.
16. Web Tracking Solutions, Inc. et al v. Google, Inc.
17. Association For Molecular Pathology et al v. United States Patent and Trademark Office et al
18. Cygnus Systems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, et al
19. Google Inc. et al v. Egger et al
20. Certicom Corporation et al v. Sony Corporation et al
21. Klausner Technologies Inc v. Verizon Wireless et al
22. Clark v. The Walt Disney Company et al
23. HYPERPHRASE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GOOGLE INC.
24. BabyAge..com, Inc. v. Leachco, Inc.
25. IP Innovation LLC et al v. Google, Inc.
26. Elan Microelectronics Corporation v. Apple, Inc.
27. Bid for Position, LLC v. AOL, LLC et al
28. Soilworks LLC v Midwest Industrial Supply Inc
29. Priest et al v Google Inc.
30. 21 srl v. Apple Inc. et al
31. PACid Group, LLC v. Apple Inc. et al
32. Accolade Systems LLC v. Micron Technology Inc et al
33. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Apple, Inc.
34. Clear With Computers, LLC v. Bassett Furniture Industries, Inc. et al
35. Motorola Inc v. Research In Motion Limited et al

Posted in Power of Patent. Tags: Apple, bankruptcy, chapter 11, economy downturn, facebook, Google, innovation, intellectual property, IP innovation, Jobs, Lawfirm, microsoft, North America, patent, patent attorney, patent infringement, Patent invalidation, Patent lawsuits, recession, revenue generation, USPTO.

Tweet  Delicious  Digg  Facebook 

Finally the Bilski case has gone to US Supreme Court. “Not since 1981 has the Supreme Court undertaken to spell out the kinds of inventions that are eligible for patent rights — that is, the right to produce or use an invented device or process, or to license it to others for royalties. Much has changed since the Court’s decision in Diamond v. Diehr in 1981, not least the digital revolution.”

A study was conducted on the effect of Biliski in various technology patents by an IP, technology and market research company called Dolcera.
Detailed report and statistics have been published at Dolcera Public Reports

The below chart depicts the effect of Biliski on various technology domains.

Tweet  Delicious  Digg  Facebook 

Red Hat Inc. and Novell Inc. are being sued by IP Innovation LLC. and Technology Licensing Corp. for patent infringement. The court filing claims that Novell and Red Hat infringed on the plaintiff’s patent for User Interface with Multiple Workspaces for Sharing Display System Objects as well as two other similar patents. This is the first patent infringement lawsuit involving Linux.

According to the lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Novell and Red Hat are accused of infringing on the patents by selling the Red Hat Linux system, the Novell SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop, and the Novell SUSE Linux Enterprise Server. IP Innovation LLC. and Technology Licensing Corp. further further contend that the defendants “deliberately and willfully” infringed on the patents, stating that the defendants were previously notified of the infringement.

IP Innovation LLC. and Technology Licensing Corp. are seeking an injunction from the District Court plus damages including other relief that the court might find proper. Novell withheld comment until their attorneys could further review the court filing.
Red Hat Inc and Novell Inc are accused of violating three patents.

Tweet  Delicious  Digg  Facebook 

Mumbai, May 18 The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) has received a United States patent on an innovative process to make sevelamer, a generic polymer that treats toxic excess of phosphate in the body caused by chronic renal failure.

The patent is a culmination of work done by CSIR’s constituent lab in Pune, the National Chemical Laboratory, on a mandate initially given by Mumbai-based drug company USV Ltd.

USV had acquired the patent rights from CSIR last year, following which it further undertook the prosecution of the application.

Dr Kulkarni’s team developed the alternative process that received the patent.

As per the agreement, USV had the first right to license the know-how and acquire the patent rights, and USV exercised this option.

USV had approached NCL in mid-2003 to develop an innovative process to manufacture the polymer. NCL developed the process and CSIR filed the patent application in India, and the US.

NCL’s scientists developed a cost-effective process to manufacture sevelamer, the phosphate-absorbing polymer. The process NCL reduces the manufacturing time and the process chemicals requirements and is easy to scale up. USV has made a one time payment, and no further milestone payments are involved, he said, citing confidentiality for not giving details.

This development is significant as a technologically novel process received a US patent and has been found commercially attractive by a pharma company.

The recent patent success comes against the backdrop of the Centre’s efforts to get more public-funded institutions to file patents and work with the industry to commercialise research efforts.

With 128 patents in 2006-2007, the CSIR accounts for about 47 per cent of the total US patents granted to Indians, excluding non-resident Indians and foreign assignees, said Mr R.K. Gupta, Head of CSIR’s IP Management Division.

Final patent

The final patent on the CSIR-developed innovative polymer will be issued by the US Patent Office in approximately four months, said Pharmaceutical Patent Attorneys, LLC, the New Jersey-based firm who prosecuted the patent for its Indian client.

Tweet  Delicious  Digg  Facebook