#patent validity

Patent Invalidity Search Services | IIP Search

At IIP Search, our Patent Invalidity Search Services and Patent Validity Search Service are designed to uncover prior art that can challenge or defend the enforceability of a patent. Whether you’re preparing for litigation, licensing, or due diligence, our in-depth approach ensures accuracy and reliability.

We combine global databases, expert patent analysts, and proven strategies to deliver results that support strong legal arguments. Our team evaluates each claim against relevant prior art, helping law firms, corporations, and inventors gain a strategic edge in disputes.

From challenging a competitor’s patent to confirming your own, trust IIP Search for unmatched precision in patent invalidity and patent validity analysis.

Explore our full Patent Validity & Invalidity Search Service now:

👉 Request your Patent Validity/Invalidity Search now .

.

.

.

The kitchen sink method of drafting patent applications involves simply including as much as possible into the patent application (i.e. everything including the kitchen sink).  Using this method, if the client provides the patent agent/lawyer with a 50 page detailed description of the invention, the agent/lawyer simply incorporates that length document into the application.  In the case of physical devices, for example a pump, this approach is often counter productive as it results in a long winded (and therefore expensive) patent document which has a large amount of unnecessary information which contributes nothing to the validity or strength of the patent.  

However, in the case of software related patents, the kitchen sink method is often vitally important.  Take the recent case of Ergo Licensing Inc. V Carefusion 303 Inc (released March 26, 2012). The case involved the validity of a patent for a software controlled system of delivering fluids to a patient's body.  An element of the patent's claims called for a "programmable control means" for metering the fluid to the patient.  The patent disclosed a general purpose computer controlled  device consisting of a programmable logic controller (PLC) coupled to an electric pump.  The court held that the disclosure was insufficient and found the patent to be invalid. The court held that the actual algorithm used to determine how the fluid was metered should have been included. 

PLCs are well understood and ubiquitous devices found in everything from coffee makers to jet aircraft.  At one time, PLCs were cutting edge technology, but today they are about as exciting as an LED or electric motor.  Therefore, its perhaps not surprising that the inventors did not pay much attention to the details of this relatively mundane component in the patent application.