Posts Tagged: "patent office"

Between the precedential Fintiv decision in March of 2020 and Director Vidal’s Guidance Memo regarding the application of Fintiv in June of 2022, the discretionary denial rates of inter partes review (IPR) institution decisions under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) plummeted from 40-50% to 11-16%. Coupled with the order issued by the Chief Judge of the Western District of Texas in July of 2022 declaring that all new patent cases filed in the Waco Division will be randomly assigned among the 12 judges in the district, the substantial decline in denials based on Fintiv in 2022 was not surprising. Now, amid speculations that Fintiv denial rates will increase once again, the USPTO recently announced a set of proposed rules on discretionary denial practice in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM).

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal issued a sua sponte Director Review decision on Tuesday explaining that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) reading of the inter partes review (IPR) statute was incorrect, and directing the Board to revisit a petition brought by Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC and to analyze the Fintiv factors in view of a parallel district court proceeding.

Today’s hearing of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet on Oversight of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) demonstrated some confusion on the part of Congress about the intent of USPTO Director Kathi Vidal’s recent Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on changes to Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) processes, and suggested the Subcommittee members believe she may be exceeding her authority.

It was another low patent-filing week at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), with just 12 new petitions (about half of last year’s average); district court filings were average with 47 new filings. Acacia subsidiary Atlas Global received more petitions on patents that are part of its broad assertion campaign; some Centripetal patents were instituted by a defendant in that going campaign; Intellectual Ventures appears to have settled the latest round of automotive litigation before Judge Albright, ending that case; and IP Edge continues to not file new cases and settle old ones, in the wake of the end of the year discovery battles. Zillow was instituted on patents IBM had asserted or threatened; and the Vidal administration is the latest recipient of yet another Gil Hyatt suit.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) held its East Coast Listening Session on AI Inventorship today, featuring both USPTO staff and patent stakeholder speakers contemplating possible approaches to patenting in a world in which generative artificial intelligence (AI) almost seems to have snuck up on everyone. While many speakers cautioned against moving too quickly to change the rules for AI-generated inventions, others warned that doing nothing could result in chaos for the USPTO and grave economic and innovation losses for the country.

Jeffrey Killian yesterday submitted a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court asking the Court to provide clear guidance on or else throw out the Alice/Mayo test for patent eligibility. Killian is involved in an ongoing patent dispute in which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) rejected claims of his  U.S. Patent Application No. 14/450,042 under Section 101. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the ruling in August 2022. In the petition, Killian claims that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) violated Supreme Court precedent by ruling the patent application ineligible under the Alice/Mayo test.

Given the various ways the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) can exercise discretion to deny institution of an inter partes review (IPR) petition (and the corresponding non?appealability of those decisions), ex parte reexamination is becoming an attractive option to challenge patent validity following a decision not to institute. Because a later filed ex parte reexamination is often viewed as a “second bite at the apple,” there were questions as to how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) should treat these second attempts at invalidating a patent. For IPRs, the PTAB has used several bases for discretionary denial of a later-filed IPR, but those bases were not being applied to follow-on ex parte reexamination requests. However, in In re Vivint, the Federal Circuit held that the USPTO has the authority to discretionarily deny an ex parte reexamination request under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), i.e., if “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.”

One day before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is set to hold its first public listening session on AI inventorship, the U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in the case of Thaler v. Vidal, which asked the Court to consider the question: “Does the Patent Act categorically restrict the statutory term ‘inventor’ to human beings alone?” Dr. Stephen Thaler lost his case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) last August, when the CAFC said the USPTO’s reading of the statute as clearly referring to inventors as natural person was “unambiguously” correct.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) indicating it is considering changes to America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Perhaps most notably, one of the proposals it is asking for input on has to do with creating rules that would authorize discretionary denial of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings “to ensure that certain for-profit, non-competitive entities do not use the IPR and PGR processes in ways that do not advance the mission and vision of the USPTO to promote innovation or the intent behind the AIA to improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and counterproductive litigation costs.”

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal said in an Order filed yesterday in IPR2021-01229 between Patent Quality Assurance (PQA)/Intel and VLSI Technology that VLSI’s reference in its Rehearing Request to an “unsolicited, anonymous, and improper ex parte communication” about the relationship between PQA and Intel that Vidal had put under seal has put VLSI on thin ice and in danger of being sanctioned.

Although the mining and metallurgical sectors are still seen as environmentally unfriendly industries, innovation in these sectors has been increasing since the beginning of the century, including in the development of green technologies. Four years ago, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) released a study measuring innovation in the mining industry with patents, “Mining patent data: Measuring innovation in the mining industry with patents”, showing a sharp increase in the number of correlated patent applications since 2005, which is a clear sign of the growth in investments in R&D and innovation made by these industries.

This week in Washington IP news, the Senate and House are back in session and holding a variety of hearings on departments’ 2024 budget requests, including for the Department of Commerce and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Elsewhere, the Council for Innovation Promotion (C4IP) is holding a webinar on proper use of Section 1498(a) of the U.S. Code; and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is hosting regional events in Central Virginia and Silicon Valley to promote resources available to prospective innovators and entrepreneurs.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal held a virtual conversation with the intellectual property (IP) press on Wednesday to coincide with a one-year anniversary Director’s blog post published today. “If last year was about listening…this is really the year where we’re trying to bring that to impact,” said Vidal. Vidal said the work she did in her first year in office was about providing clarity and sometimes learning from “unintended consequences,” but this year is going to be about implementation based on the feedback they’ve been provided via the various requests for comments, listening sessions and other initiatives the Office has undertaken. “We now have more knowledge to shape real policy,” Vidal said.

By now, unless you live in a total IP blackout zone, you’ve heard about the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court (UPC). Your friends in Europe, particularly, have been insistent on informing you, whether you want to know or not, with daily (if not hourly) email blasts, since January of this year. But most of what they tell you misses the forest for the trees. Here’s why. Let’s begin at the beginning. Aside from your client telling you to, why do you file a patent application? The only answer is: it is a hedge as to the future. The reason for that is that you and they have no way of knowing at the time of filing whether this will be the “next big thing” or just another “thing”. You might say or even believe that filing an application is about “protection” or potential “revenue”. But it isn’t.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today affirmed in a precedential decision the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) finding that Moderna Therapeutics proved certain claims of Arbutus Biopharma Corporation’s mRNA delivery patent invalid as anticipated. U.S. Patent No. 9,404,127 is titled “Non-liposomal Systems for Nucleic Acid Delivery” and is directed to “an invention that provides stable nucleic acid-lipid particles (‘SNALP’) that have a non-lamellar structure and ‘comprise a nucleic acid . . . methods of making the SNALP, and methods of delivering and/or administering the SNALP.’” SNALP has a three-dimensional structure that is either a lamellar morphology or non-lamellar (pictured).