Posts in USPTO

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled yesterday that Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty. Ltd. has “a real interest” in cancelling the registration for NAKED for condoms, owned by Naked TM, LLC. While the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) had found that Australian lacked standing to petition for cancellation because “it had contracted away its proprietary rights in its unregistered marks,” the Court held that “a petitioner seeking to cancel a trademark registration establishes an entitlement to bring a cancellation proceeding under 15 U.S.C. § 1064 by demonstrating a real interest in the cancellation proceeding and a reasonable belief of damage regardless of whether petitioner lacks a proprietary interest in an asserted unregistered mark.” Judge Wallach dissented from the majority opinion, which was authored by Judge Reyna.

This month, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released a report titled “Progress and Potential: 2020 update on U.S. women inventor- patentees” (the Report). The Report updated a study published last year that outlined trends in women inventors named on U.S. patents from 1976 to 2016. These reports are a result of the Study of Underrepresented Classes Chasing Engineering and Science Success (SUCCESS) Act of 2018, which directed the USPTO to study and report to Congress on the number of patents applied for and obtained: (1) by women, minorities, and veterans; and (2) by small businesses owned by women, minorities, and veterans. As evidenced by the USPTO reports, women are under-represented as inventors of record on USPTO patents, which is least partially due to a general lack of funding available to women inventors. 

In late June, Unified Patents published the findings of an economic report conducted by consulting firm The Perryman Group on the supposed impacts of validity trials conducted under the America Invents Act (AIA) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on the U.S. economy. Unsurprisingly, the report is very bullish on the effects of the AIA, and Perryman pegs the positive impact of the AIA and the PTAB at $2.95 billion in terms of increased gross domestic product, $1.41 billion in increased personal income and 13,500 of additional job-years of employment. Careful observers of the U.S. patent system, however, will note that the data only does a good job of examining one side of the PTAB’s impact.

As previously reported, Washington, D.C.’s professional football team announced recently that it has decided to retire the “Redskins” name and logo. In surveys throughout the Washington, D.C. metro area, three possible replacement names have emerged as favorites among the fans: Warriors, Red Wolves, and Redtails. Armed with the knowledge of the name change and the relative popularity of the possible replacement names, two enterprising individuals have applied to obtain a federal trademark registration for the marks WARRIORS, WASHINGTON RED WOLVES, and WASHINGTON REDTAILS, respectively. Neither applicant appears to be connected to the owners of the Washington D.C. professional football team.

On July 22, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) in Uniloc 2017, LLC v. HULU, LLC. In particular, the CAFC found that the case was not moot despite a prior CAFC judgment of invalidity and that the Board did not err in rejecting Uniloc’s Request for Rehearing on the basis of Section 101 invalidity of the proposed substitute claims. Judge O’Malley issued a strong dissent, accusing the majority of “breath[ing] life into a dead patent and us[ing] the zombie it has created as a means to dramatically expand the scope of inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings.”

It was a relatively light week in the district court compared with recent memory, with 56 new complaints filed; the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is holding steady with 27 filings (all inter partes reviews [IPRs] this week), a number nearly identical to the totals for the past few months. The District Court activity was driven by new complaints in existing campaigns, some new ANDA/aBLA litigations related to pharmaceutical generic entry, a smattering of company disputes, and a new campaign by Raymond Anthony Joao. At the Board, a trickle of petitions filed as part of ongoing licensing disputes between Dolby and Intertrust, some further challenges in the funded Neodron suits, some further filings by Verzion against Huawei, and a number of petitions in response to non-practicing entity (NPE) suits made up the balance.

After decades of legal battles in which they ultimately succeeded in maintaining the legal right to federal trademark registration of the “REDSKINS” moniker—through the separate efforts of an Asian band by the name of “The Slants”—Washington, D.C.’s National Football League (NFL) team finally succumbed to pressure to change their name. Faced with the immediate prospect of losing $45 million from a stadium naming rights deal with Federal Express, on July 13, 2020, the team announced it would have a new name and logo. Still to come: the new name and logo.

In the United States patent system, patent applications are handled by two separate, yet equally important, groups: the patent practitioners, who prepare and prosecute applications on behalf of inventors or their assignees; and the patent examiners, who examine the applications for the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for patentability under U.S. patent law. Ryan Potts worked at the USPTO for over seven years, including several as a primary examiner, before joining Lando & Anastasi. Rob Lichter worked at the USPTO as a junior patent examiner before becoming a law firm associate. The following is a list of tips and insights to understanding and interacting with U.S. patent examiners.

The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute last week had its district court win affirmed when the Federal Circuit upheld a decision that two of the Institute’s researchers must be added as co-inventors on several patents relating to advancements in cancer treatment. The Court ruled that the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts did not err in its determination that Dr. Gordon Freeman and Dr. Clive Wood should be added to the patents, and said that the appellants’ arguments would require the Court to “adopt an unnecessarily heightened inventorship standard.” Ono Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Tasuku Honjo, E.R. Squibb & Sons, L.L.C., and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (collectively, “Ono”) appealed the district court’s ruling.  

The time is upon us when young patent professionals, many of them fresh out of law school (or out of engineering school) begin their professional lives as patent prosecutors. These new members to our profession quite naturally look to senior patent professionals for practical guidance. The guidance often is in the form of adages that form the Conventional Wisdom of patent prosecution. Much of this Conventional Wisdom, as it turns out, is often not very practical and some of it is not all that wise. In most cases, the Conventional Wisdom is not exactly wrong; it’s just that there may be other ways of doing things that may be more practical or effective for a particular practitioner. I’m going to talk about some pieces of Conventional Wisdom that I received that turned out to be, well, not-all-that-helpful advice. I will share what advice I would offer in its place.

On June 30, New Vision Gaming & Development filed a corrected appellant brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit challenging two covered business method (CBM) reviews conducted at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) which canceled all claims of New Vision’s patents covering a gaming invention. Among other things, New Vision argues that the PTAB is constitutionally flawed, that its structure creates financial incentives for administrative patent judges (APJs) to grant validity reviews in a way that destroys due process for patent owners, and that the PTAB’s APJs have neither the judicial independence nor the oversight of Article III courts necessary to address the impermissible appearance of bias at that tribunal.

It was a banner week in the district courts, with 110 new filings, and the filings are showing signs of picking up—rather than slowing down—amidst the COVID pandemic.  Most of that, however, was driven by vape company Juul Labs, Inc.’s filing of some 39 new district court complaints.  An average 28 PTAB cases filed, all inter partes reviews this week, included the usual suspects—parties filing against the sprawling Neodron, Soundview, and Solas OLED campaigns, as well as medical device, battery, and streaming service competitor fights.

On July 8, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), in Fitbit, Inc. v. Valencell, Inc., vacated a Final Written Decision of the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an appeal from an inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 8,923,941 (the ’941 patent). In particular, the CAFC held that the PTAB erred in failing to consider the patentability of claims 3-5 of the ‘941 patent when determining that the claims were not unpatentable. Thus, the CAFC vacated the PTAB’s decision and remanded for consideration on the merits of patentability.

This morning, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced that Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross reappointed Commissioner for Patents Drew Hirshfeld for a second five-year term. Commissioner Hirshfeld’s original term was set to expire this month. Hirshfeld began his career with the USPTO in 1994 as a Patent Examiner, became a Supervisory Patent Examiner in 2001, and was promoted in 2008 to Group Director in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture Software and Information Security).

The USPTO’s recent landmark decision (16/524,350) concluding artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be a named patent inventor perhaps sparked fears of super-robots inventing critical technologies that, alas, receive no patent protection. If an AI identifies new, more efficient battery chemicals, will that new battery be unpatentable? If an AI builds chemical compounds that become the next wonder drug, will that drug-maker…