Posts in USPTO

This week in Washington IP news, Congress is returning from its summer recess and the Senate is holding several hearings its first week back, including the Senate Energy Committee which turns its focus to artificial intelligence. Elsewhere, CSIS will discuss defense technology acquisition, and ITIF meets with state government representatives to look at how states can help the CHIPS Act succeed.

Pfizer, Inc. and BioNTech SE on Monday hit back at competitor COVID-19 vaccine maker Moderna with inter partes review (IPR) petitions against two Moderna patents on mRNA vaccine technology at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Pfizer/ BioNTech told the PTAB that Moderna’s patents include “unimaginably broad claims directed to a basic idea” and asked the Board to cancel all of the challenged claims of both patents.  

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today in In re Cellect holding that patent term extension (PTE) and patent term adjustment (PTA) are not the same for purposes of an obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) analysis. Specifically, the court said that “ODP for a patent that has received PTA, regardless whether or not a terminal disclaimer is required or has been filed, must be based on the expiration date of the patent after PTA has been added.” The opinion was authored by Judge Lourie.

This week in Washington IP news, as a new school year begins, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) looks at the latest research on invention education. Congress is still on vacation, yet hot topic issues are still being discussed elsewhere, including the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) looking at the state of the Chinese economy, and the American Enterprise Institute discussing what the U.S. federal government can do to patent rights during a public health emergency.

This past week, IPWatchdog was made aware of a petition for post-grant review (PGR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that raises interesting arguments about allegedly inconsistent statements on patentability made during legal proceedings by pharmaceutical firm, Gilead Sciences. Filed in early August, the PGR petition from Atea Pharmaceuticals cites 35 U.S.C. § 112 arguments previously raised by Gilead in other cases to challenge the validity of Gilead’s own patent claims that were allegedly obtained to block Atea’s competing hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatments.

On Thursday, Reuters reported that Google sent a letter to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) criticizing proposed rule changes that the tech firm believes will stifle U.S. innovation. The internet giant expressly pointed to the field of artificial intelligence as a weak point for the USPTO and its patent examiners. The letter was signed by Halimah DeLaine Prado, General Counsel for Google.

In a precedential decision issued today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) vacated and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling that found all claims of a Volvo Penta patent unpatentable as obvious. The court found that the PTAB erred in its analysis of nexus between the claims and evidence of secondary considerations, as well as in its weighing of the objective indicia of nonobviousness.

U.S. patent practitioners have had a rocky relationship with the once-straightforward patent eligibility requirement under 35 U.S.C. 101 in recent years. Decisions such as Mayo and Alice upended the status quo, muddying the threshold test for patent subject matter eligibility. When dealing with difficult 101 rejections under this new status quo, it can sometimes help to think outside of the box about how to overcome a given rejection. This article presents a potential unlabeled “Step Zero” of the Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis which could help you overcome or avoid 101 rejections.

In addition to unrecoverable issues like divided infringement, it’s no secret that patents have come under increased scrutiny over the last decade. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) continues to invalidate patent claims at an alarming rate, defendants have ever-increasing invalidity and non-infringement arguments to make in district court, and the Supreme Court’s Alice decision on patent eligibility continues to baffle the entire patent community…. While the patent community debates the need for reform, an easy and attainable solution, and one that is within your control, is simply to strengthen the patents before they issue.

On August 18, the owner of the APPLE JAZZ trademark filed an opposition to Apple’s motion to amend its trademark application for the mark APPLE MUSIC with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). In its motion, the tech giant asked the TTAB to allow the company to remove “live performance services, as well as related services,” from the application. In July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) denied Apple’s request to rehear a decision that effectively canceled the tech company’s application to register the APPLE MUSIC mark.

Last week, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) hosted a webinar to discuss recent revisions to the interim process for Director review of America Invents Act (AIA) trial decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While the revised procedures include the delegation of the Director’s review authority to a pair of newly created panels, officials from the USPTO indicated that the Director’s discretion to review and opine upon issues in delegated cases meet the constitutional mandate laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Arthrex (2021).

Careless naming of inventors on a patent application can create confusion and add complexity to an already intricate process. The recent case of Blue Gentian, LLC v. Tristar Prod., Inc. is a great example where failure to properly list a co-inventor resulted in the only named inventor losing their patent rights…. To avoid a case similar to Blue Gentian v. Tristar, identify all inventors carefully and have them sign an assignment agreement, which transfers their rights to a single entity, such as an individual or the company that’s going to exploit the patent.

The past year has provided decades’ worth of developments across law and policy in the areas of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) technologies. If 2022 was the breakthrough year for accessible AI, then 2023 can so far be deemed as the first year of likely many more to come in the era of an AI inquisition. “After years of somewhat academic discourse,” reflects Dr. Ryan Abbott, “AI and copyright law have finally burst into the public consciousness—from contributing to the writer’s strike to a wave of high-profile cases alleging copyright infringement from machine learning to global public hearings on the protectability of AI-generated works.” Both the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are in active litigation over the eligibility of generative AI outputs for statutory protection. Additionally, both offices have held numerous webinars and listening sessions and conducted other methods of collecting feedback from the public as they work through policy considerations surrounding AI.

A little over halfway through 2023, and nearing the end of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) fiscal year, we can take stock of an administrative body that is settling into a decade of precedent while big changes still loom. Unlike prior years, where policy changes resulted in statistical swings for institution rates, outcomes, amendment practice, and the like, this year has been more of an extension of previous trends (though institution rates are still creeping higher).

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a ruling in Shamoon v. Resideo Technologies, Inc. affirming a final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that invalidated patent claims covering a communication system for accessing geographically remote locations. While the decision was nonprecedential, the Federal Circuit also struck down constitutional challenges to the PTAB proceedings raised by the pro se inventor and patent owner.