Patent: 10,231,665

Summary for Patent: 10,231,665

Title:	Diagnosing and treating movement disorders
Abstract:	A system for obtaining and analyzing data for overall joint motion from a plurality of joints of a subject experiencing a movement disorder involves a plurality of kinematic sensors configured to be placed on a body of a subject experiencing a movement disorder proximal a plurality of joints of the subject. The kinematic sensors are selected to measure overall joint motion with sufficient degrees of freedom for individual joints so that data collected by the sensors can be deconstructed into multiple degrees of freedom for individual joints and analyzed to provide amplitude of the movements caused by the movement disorder and/or relative contributions from and/or directional bias for each muscle group that may be implicated in the movement of each joint. Such a system permits methods for determining a treatment regimen for treating the movement disorder, whereby the treatment regimen is based on the amplitude of the movements and/or the relative contribution and/or directional bias of each muscle group to the movements caused by the movement disorder.
Inventor(s):	Rahimi; Fariborz (Kitchener, CA), Jog; Mandar (London, CA)
Application Number:	14/914,591
Patent Claims:	see list of patent claims

Transforming Data into Market Domination: A Comprehensive Analysis of U.S. Patent 10,231,665 and the Patent Landscape

Introduction

In the ever-evolving landscape of intellectual property, understanding the nuances of patent law and the strategies involved in patenting inventions is crucial for businesses aiming to dominate their markets. This article will delve into a comprehensive analysis of U.S. Patent 10,231,665, exploring its claims, the broader patent landscape, and key considerations for practitioners.

Understanding U.S. Patent 10,231,665

To begin with, it is essential to understand the specific claims and subject matter of U.S. Patent 10,231,665. While the exact details of this patent are not provided here, a general approach to analyzing any patent involves examining the claims, specifications, and drawings.

Claims Analysis

The claims of a patent define the scope of the invention and are critical in determining the patent's validity and enforceability. Each claim must be clear, concise, and fully supported by the specification and drawings. For U.S. Patent 10,231,665, a thorough review of the claims would involve identifying the independent and dependent claims, understanding the limitations and scope of each claim, and assessing how these claims differentiate the invention from prior art.

Specification and Drawings

The specification and drawings provide the detailed description of the invention, explaining how it works and what it does. These sections must enable a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to make and use the invention. A critical analysis would involve verifying that the specification and drawings are sufficient to support the claims and that there are no inconsistencies or ambiguities.

The Broader Patent Landscape

Obviousness-Type Double Patenting (ODP)

The concept of ODP, as seen in cases like In re Cellect LLC, is crucial in understanding the patent landscape. ODP prevents an inventor from securing a second, later-expiring patent for an invention covered by a patent that was filed at the same time but has a different patent term due to a grant of Patent Term Adjustment (PTA)[1].

Use of AI Tools in Patent Applications

The increasing use of AI tools in drafting and editing patent applications introduces new risks and responsibilities. The USPTO has issued guidance emphasizing the need for practitioners to review and verify the accuracy of documents generated by AI tools to ensure compliance with the duty of candor and good faith. This includes disclosing any material information related to the use of AI, such as contributions to the invention that may affect inventorship[2].

Prior Art Exceptions under the America Invents Act (AIA)

Understanding prior art exceptions is vital for navigating the patent landscape. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1) and (2), disclosures made one year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention can be excepted from prior art if they were made by the inventor or a joint inventor, or if the subject matter was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor[3].

Patent Term Adjustments and Terminal Disclaimers

Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) and terminal disclaimers are important considerations in managing the lifespan of a patent. PTA can extend the term of a patent due to delays in the USPTO's processing, but it does not extend the term past the date of a terminal disclaimer. Terminal disclaimers are often used to overcome ODP rejections and ensure that the patents do not extend beyond the original expiration date[1].

Confidentiality and National Security Considerations

The use of AI tools in patent applications also raises concerns about confidentiality and national security. Practitioners must ensure that client-sensitive information is not inadvertently disclosed through the use of AI systems, which may retain and use this information in various ways[2].

International Collaborations and Patent Strategies

International collaborations, such as the US-JP Collaborative Search Pilot Program, can streamline the patent process and enhance the quality of patent examinations. This program allows for joint searches between the USPTO and the Japan Patent Office, reducing the time and effort required for patent applicants[4].

Expert Testimony and Damages in Patent Litigation

In patent litigation, expert testimony on damages is a critical aspect. The Federal Circuit's review in cases like EcoFactor v. Google highlights the importance of ensuring that damages theories meet reliability standards under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. This involves careful scrutiny of methodological flaws and speculative assumptions in damages calculations[5].

Key Considerations for Practitioners

Thorough Review and Verification

Practitioners must thoroughly review and verify all documents, including those generated by AI tools, to ensure accuracy and compliance with USPTO guidelines.

Disclosure of AI Contributions

Any material contributions made by AI tools to the invention must be disclosed to the USPTO to avoid issues related to inventorship and patentability.

Managing Patent Term and ODP

Careful management of patent term adjustments and the use of terminal disclaimers are essential to avoid ODP issues and ensure that patents do not extend beyond their intended expiration dates.

Protecting Confidential Information

Practitioners must be vigilant in protecting client-sensitive information when using AI tools to avoid breaches of confidentiality.

Key Takeaways

• Claims Analysis: Thoroughly review the claims to understand the scope and validity of the patent.
• AI Tool Use: Ensure all AI-generated documents are reviewed and verified for accuracy and compliance.
• Prior Art Exceptions: Understand and apply prior art exceptions under the AIA to overcome rejections.
• Patent Term Management: Manage PTA and terminal disclaimers to avoid ODP issues.
• Confidentiality: Protect client-sensitive information when using AI tools.
• International Collaborations: Leverage international programs to streamline the patent process.

FAQs

Q: What is the significance of Obviousness-Type Double Patenting (ODP) in patent law?

A: ODP prevents an inventor from securing a second, later-expiring patent for an invention covered by a patent that was filed at the same time but has a different patent term due to a grant of PTA.

Q: How should practitioners handle the use of AI tools in patent applications?

A: Practitioners must review and verify the accuracy of AI-generated documents, disclose any material contributions made by AI, and ensure compliance with USPTO guidelines.

Q: What are the prior art exceptions under the America Invents Act (AIA)?

A: Disclosures made one year or less before the effective filing date can be excepted from prior art if they were made by the inventor or a joint inventor, or if the subject matter was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.

Q: How do Patent Term Adjustments (PTA) and terminal disclaimers affect the lifespan of a patent?

A: PTA can extend the term of a patent due to USPTO delays, but it does not extend the term past the date of a terminal disclaimer, which is used to overcome ODP rejections.

Q: What are the confidentiality risks associated with using AI tools in patent applications?

A: AI tools may retain and use client-sensitive information, posing a risk of breaching confidentiality obligations.

Sources

1. In re Cellect, LLC, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 2023.
2. U.S. Patent Office Issues Additional Guidance on Use of AI Tools, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, 2024.
3. Prior Art Exceptions under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) and (2), United States Patent and Trademark Office.
4. US-JP Collaborative Search Pilot Program, Japan Patent Office, 2024.
5. Damages Experts Analysis on the Front Burner, Patently-O, 2024.

Details for Patent 10,231,665

Applicant	Tradename	Biologic Ingredient	Dosage Form	BLA	Approval Date	Patent No.	Expiredate
Solstice Neurosciences, Llc	MYOBLOC	rimabotulinumtoxinb	Injection	103846	December 08, 2000	10,231,665	2033-09-20