I. Introduction A PCT application designating the United States gives applicants a choice that does not exist in the same way in many other jurisdictions: enter the U.S. national stage under 35 U.S.C. § 371, or file a domestic U.S. application under 35 U.S.C. § 111(a) claiming benefit of the PCT application. Practitioners usually call the second route a bypass continuation. That choice is a U.S.-specific product of continuation practice. Other major offices may pr

Introduction The easiest comparative mistake is to say that U.S. “written description” and Chinese “support by the description” are the same doctrine under different names. They are not. They respond to a similar overclaiming problem, but they operate through different statutory provisions, different institutional settings, and different vocabularies. In the United States, the central doctrine is the written-description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). It asks whether the s

I. Introduction The recent Federal Circuit cases on patent eligibility do not simply show that U.S. law has become hostile to particular technologies. They show something more specific and more institutional: the United States often asks threshold eligibility doctrine to perform work that other patent systems assign to inventive step, enablement, support, or claim clarity. The point is not that those other systems are necessarily more generous. They may be demanding in differ

Consider a familiar device-company scenario. A regulatory team prepares a 510(k) and tells FDA that a design feature tracks a predicate device, is supported by familiar engineering literature, and does not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness. Around the same time, the patent team argues to the USPTO that the same feature, or a particular implementation of it, is central to novelty or nonobviousness. Each position may be defensible. The risk begins when no one has p

Restriction requirements are often treated as administrative noise—something to get past on the way to allowance. The Federal 2025 decision in Focus Products Group International, LLC v. Kartri Sales Co. shows how dangerous that mindset can be. In that case, a species restriction and the patentee’s handling of it became the backbone of a prosecution history disclaimer argument that narrowed claim scope enough to wipe out two patent infringement wins. I. From hookless curtains