{"id":2543,"date":"2010-06-28T14:47:10","date_gmt":"2010-06-28T20:47:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=2543"},"modified":"2010-07-15T12:49:43","modified_gmt":"2010-07-15T18:49:43","slug":"filing-a-continuation-on-the-day-the-parent-issues-co-pending","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=2543","title":{"rendered":"Filing a continuation on the day the parent issues &#8212; co-pending??"},"content":{"rendered":"<blockquote>\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"margin: 0in 0in 10pt;\"><span style=\"font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;\">\u201cWe therefore leave for another day whether filing a continuation on the day the parent issues results in applications that are co-pending as required by the statute.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"margin: 0in 0in 10pt;\"><span style=\"font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;\">Those were the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/06\/score.mp3\">ominous<\/a>\u00a0words at the end of Judge Moore\u2019s recent opinion in <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Electronics of America, Inc. et al.<\/span>, 2009-1544 (Fed. Cir. June 18, 2010).<span style=\"mso-spacerun: yes;\">\u00a0 <\/span>The defendants in the case argued that a continuation application filed on the same day that the parent application issues is not co-pending with the parent; therefore, the requirements of 35 USC \u00a7120 are not met so as to entitle the continuation application to the filing date of the parent application\/patent.<span style=\"mso-spacerun: yes;\">\u00a0 <\/span>The argument asserted the holding of a Supreme Court case (the\u00a0<span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">United States v. Locke<\/span>, 471 U.S. 84 (1985) case) where the Court addressed the meaning of the word \u201cbefore\u201d when used in conjunction with a date in an unrelated statute.<span style=\"mso-spacerun: yes;\">\u00a0 <\/span>Since \u00a7120 requires the filing of a continuation application \u201cbefore\u201d the patenting of the parent application, a same day filing would not be before the patenting of the parent application (according to the defendants). [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/06\/2009-1544-encyclopedia-excerpt-1.mp3\">Listen<\/a>].<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"margin: 0in 0in 10pt;\"><span style=\"font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;\">The plaintiff-appellant asserted the practice of the Patent Office in recognizing continuation filings on the same day that the parent issues. [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/06\/2009-1544-encyclopedia-excerpt-2.mp3\">Listen<\/a>].<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"margin: 0in 0in 10pt;\"><span style=\"font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;\">You can listen to the entire oral argument here: [<a href=\"http:\/\/oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov\/mp3\/2009-1544.mp3\">Listen<\/a>].<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"margin: 0in 0in 10pt;\"><span style=\"font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;\">You can read the court\u2019s opinion here:<span style=\"mso-spacerun: yes;\">\u00a0 <\/span>[<a href=\"http:\/\/www.cafc.uscourts.gov\/opinions\/09-1544e.pdf\">Read<\/a>].<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"margin: 0in 0in 10pt;\"><span style=\"font-family: Calibri; font-size: small;\">Update:\u00a0 You can read the Supreme Court&#8217;s opinion\u00a0in <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">United States v. Locke<\/span>, 471 U.S. 84 (1985) here:\u00a0[<a href=\"http:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/us\/471\/84\/case.html\">Read<\/a>].<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>\u201cWe therefore leave for another day whether filing a continuation on the day the parent issues results in applications that are co-pending as required by the statute.\u201d Those were the ominous\u00a0words at the end of Judge Moore\u2019s recent opinion in Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Electronics of America, Inc. et al., 2009-1544 (Fed. Cir. June [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2543"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2543"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2543\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2551,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2543\/revisions\/2551"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2543"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2543"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2543"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}