Posts Tagged: "patent office"

Yesterday, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) held a “public listening session” to hear from industry leaders on the topic of standard essential patents. The event was specifically related to the USPTO’s effort to obtain stakeholder input on questions regarding proposed international standards that were presented in a recent Federal Register Notice, as well as strategies identified in the White House’s National Standards Strategy for Critical and Emerging Technologies.

Clarity, transparency and integrity were themes consistently referenced by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal during a lunchtime fireside chat with IPWatchdog Founder and CEO Gene Quinn on Day 3 of IPWatchdog LIVE 2023. Throughout the discussion, which ran the gamut from the agency’s current rulemaking to potential issues with emerging technologies, Director Vidal strongly encouraged public participation from stakeholders to improve the functioning of the nation’s patent and trademark-granting agency.

The general consensus of attendees at a panel held during IPWatchdog LIVE 2023, day two, is that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) will never be eliminated. Open questions remain, however, on the effectiveness of PTAB reforms recently proposed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Those rule changes, and similar legislative efforts in Congress, were the subject of “Dissecting PTAB Rulemaking & Legislation: Will it Make Things Any Better?”

If a sanctions order is the stuff of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) practitioner’s bad dreams, then the issuance of sanctions outright cancelling a client’s patent(s) qualifies as their worst nightmare. That nightmare happened to Longhorn Vaccine (“Longhorn”) in April of this year, when the PTAB canceled five  of its patents as sanctions for Longhorn’s violation of the duty of candor relating to withholding test data that the PTAB deemed relevant to the patentability of the challenged claims. A month later, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal sua sponte ordered Director Review of PTAB’s sanctions order. We now await her decision. This article examines the PTAB’s unprecedented sanctions order in the context of Director Vidal’s recent crackdown on inter partes review (IPR) abuses and provides guidance as to what practitioners can do now to avoid accusations of misconduct before the PTAB.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued two precedential opinions vacating and remanding decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In the first, the court said the PTAB abused its discretion in finding that Netflix, Inc. failed to articulate a field of endeavor to establish analogous art, vacating the Board’s decision in part. In the second, the CAFC vacated the PTAB’s finding that Apple, Inc. had failed to prove Corephotonics’ patent claims unpatentable as obvious, holding that the evidence supported a different claim construction than that adopted by the Board in one decision, and because the Board’s decision in the second inter partes review (IPR) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The regulatory framework for the inter partes review (IPR) process has long been the subject of criticism from both patent owners and petitioners. There is a growing consensus that the existing rules need to be revised to address loopholes and unintended consequences that have developed over the 10 years the America Invents Act (AIA) has been in effect. To that end, both the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and Congress have proposed changes in the regulatory framework. While the two disparate approaches seek to change the IPR playing field, their purpose and approach are significantly different. This article discusses those similarities and differences.

Months after invalidating patent claims undergirding one of the largest infringement verdicts ever entered in U.S. district court, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently received a round of briefing regarding potential sanctions against petitioner Patent Quality Assurance (PQA). Once accused by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) of using the America Invents Act (AIA) process to extort money, PQA argues that its failure to respond to mandated discovery and its alleged misrepresentations regarding exclusive retainer of an expert witness should not result in an attorneys’ fees award as compensatory damages to patent owner VLSI.

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.  

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.

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.

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).

The commercialization of space flight and space exploration has given rise to many inventions being deployed into outer space and onto celestial bodies. Inventors seeking to enforce their patent rights are challenged by the territorial nature of intellectual property laws. The current treaties do not protect the inventors’ rights against infringement.

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.