Posts in USPTO

An event held Monday by the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), and moderated by former U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Andrei Iancu, featured a number of high-profile political and professional figures in the intellectual property space debating approaches to strengthening the U.S. patent system, with an emphasis on national security. Representative Deborah Ross (D-NC), who serves on the U.S. House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, first joined Iancu to discuss her reasons for supporting the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act.

This week in Washington IP news, the House is holding several meetings pertinent to IP-watchers, including an evaluation of the White House’s policy on AI. Elsewhere, CSIS will speak with to Representative Deborah Ross (D-NC) about the role of the United States in IP’s geopolitical importance.

Recently, Wen Xie argued on IPWatchdog that the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) have reached different conclusions regarding “the creative and conceiving capabilities of machines,” which leads to intellectual property (IP) law being self-contradictory. According to Xie, the USCO presumes that artificial intelligence (AI) is creative, while the USPTO does not reach a similar conclusion regarding AI inventorship. I disagree.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced today that it is launching a pilot program to help promote semiconductor innovation by expediting examination for qualifying patents. The program is meant to support the objectives of President Biden’s Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) and Science Act, which was signed into law in August 2022. The CHIPS and Science Act provided $280 billion in federal funding to encourage the domestic production of semiconductor products in the United States as well as to fund research and development projects in advanced technological fields like quantum computing and artificial intelligence. The law also provides for a $10 billion investment into the development of regional innovation and technology hubs and establishes other programs supporting science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) educational programs.

Here we go again! We’ve heard the story in the past, which is sadly all too common. A patent owner prevails in federal district court, and also prevails at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR) challenge, but somehow finds themselves still fighting an ex parte reexamination. How is this possible? Perhaps something will be done—this time—because the abusive, harassing challenger is Chinese company TikTok, who is seeking to invalidate the very same claims it failed to invalidate in an IPR that was denied institution on the merits.

Last weekend, The Federalist Society hosted a panel as part of its 2023 National Lawyers Convention featuring in-house counsel from Google and Qualcomm, as well as two federal judges and an academic, to discuss whether U.S. law around IP injunctions is promoting or harming markets for innovators and creators. Predictably, Google’s and Qualcomm’s counsel had starkly different perspectives on that topic.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) finding that Medtronic failed to prove the challenged claims of Teleflex’s catheter patent unpatentable. In several previous precedential decisions issued this year, the CAFC similarly upheld the PTAB’s determinations. In May, the court said that Medtronic failed to show the challenged claims of five catheter patents unpatentable because the primary prior art reference cited by Medtronic did not qualify as prior art under pre-America Invents Act (AIA) first-to-invent provisions. Judge Dyk dissented. And in June, the court found in two separate rulings issued the same day that Teleflex’s objective evidence supported a presumption of nexus, that Medtronic copied Teleflex’s product and that Teleflex’s substitute claims did not lack adequate written description.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today announced that a final rule will be published tomorrow, November 16, in the Federal Register implementing a design patent practitioner bar. The Office first published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to the Federal Register in May 2023 contemplating a separate design patent practitioner bar. A request for comments (RFC) was also published in October 22.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal today designated as precedential a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision from March of this year that held a precedential U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruling on prior art determinations for provisional applications applies only to pre-America Invents Act (AIA) patents.

Most patent prosecutors err on the side of caution when deciding whether to cite prior art references to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Indeed, the consequence of not citing known prior art can be a finding during patent litigation that there was a violation of the USPTO’s duty of disclosure amounting to inequitable conduct, with the patent thereby being deemed unenforceable. But the United States Court of Appeals the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Elekta Limited v. Zap Surgical Systems (Case 2021-1985, September 21, 2023) suggests that patent prosecutors should think about ways that the fact that references are being cited could be used against the patent owner, and prosecutors might consider clarifying the record to negate potential inferences being drawn based on the citation of references.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued its one millionth design patent on September 26, 2023. U.S. Patent No. D1,000,000 claims the ornamental design for a dispensing comb. This milestone comes during a particularly prolific period for design patents. In 2022 alone, the USPTO received more than 50,000 design patent applications. The Office has seen a 20% growth in design patent applications over the last five years. It is not hard to understand why inventors are seeking design patent protection at previously unseen levels. In an age of complicated technologies, design patents can protect marketable appearances of products in the same manner generally as trademarks identify source. Understanding design patent benefits underlying the recent growth in application numbers is a good lesson for businesses seeking to distinguish a brand—but keep an eye out for further developments and be prepared to adjust business and IP strategies.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) responded last week to a petition for certiorari that is asking the Supreme Court to overturn a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decision that said appellate review of whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) discretionary denial rules for inter partes review (IPR) are “arbitrary and capricious” is precluded by Section 314(d) of the patent statute.

The President’s recent Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence instructs the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director and Copyright Registrar to collaboratively issue recommendations to the President on further actions for advancing AI innovation through intellectual property, particularly with respect to AI inventorship and AI authorship. But the two offices currently regard AI differently in terms of assessing the creative and conceiving capabilities of machines, which poses a potential contradiction in how intellectual property law treats AI.

In today’s high-tech landscape, the ancient fable of the goose that laid the golden eggs imparts profound wisdom. The farmer in that tale weighed the decision to continue accumulating wealth slowly by selling the golden eggs that his magical goose laid (one per day) or taking a risk by killing the goose to harvest all of the gold within it at once. (Ultimately, the farmer chose the murderous path only to discover the goose did not contain any riches.) Just as the farmer faced thorny decisions in the tale, modern tech executives grapple with complex choices between immediate returns and long-term potential while also maintaining a competitive edge. In the real world, an artificial intelligence (AI) system that can generate patentable outputs (such as designs for new drugs) stands as the metaphorical “goose” while the inventions it produces are analogous to the “golden eggs.” Steadfastly guiding this delicate dance is the patent attorney with expertise in AI technology.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) this week ordered Apple, Inc. and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to respond to a petition for writ of mandamus filed by the owner of the APPLE JAZZ trademark, who has been embroiled in a fight with Apple, Inc. over rights to the mark since 2016. Charles Bertini, who owns APPLE JAZZ, petitioned the CAFC last week, asking the court to direct the USPTO to issue a final decision on its petition to cancel Apple’s mark, APPLE (Registration No. 4088195) for nonuse/ abandonment on the ground that Apple never used the mark in commerce for entertainment services listed in the Registration Certificate.