Posts Tagged: "USPTO"

This week in Washington IP news, the House and Senate are having a quieter week after the Thanksgiving break, but a House subcommittee delves into the critical software supply chain. Elsewhere, the USPTO celebrates Hispanic innovators, discusses fashion and IP and continues its tutorial series on Patent Center.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday vacated and remanded a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decision that had sustained an opposition to the mark GET ORDAINED, holding that the TTAB had failed to “furnish a reasoned explanation for departing from its established practice of deeming unargued claims waived.”

It was a typical week for patent filings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) with 25 new Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) petitions—all inter partes reviews (IPRs). Meanwhile, the district courts had a somewhat above average week with 76 new complaints filed.Meanwhile, the district courts had a somewhat above average week with 76 new complaints filed. At the PTAB, Hyundai filed two new IPRs against Mel Navip LLC [associated with Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC] patents; Fortinet Inc. filed two IPRs against one Lionra Technologies [associated with Magnetar Capital] patent; and Apple filed two IPRs against DoDots Licensing Solutions [Strategic Intellectual Solutions] patents.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruled in a precedential decision today that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) does not lose its statutory authority to issue a Final Written Decision when it misses the 1.5-year deadline to do so, as established by the patent statute. According to the opinion, which was authored by Judge Dyk, “[t]his appears to be the only proceeding in which the Board has failed to meet the statutory deadline, and this is accordingly a matter of first impression.”

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.

It was a typical week for patent filings at both the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and in district courts, with 25 new PTAB petitions (five post grant review and 20 inter partes review) and 53 new district court complaints filed. At the PTAB, there were three procedural denials under Section 325(d) (and denying patent owner’s request to deny under Fintiv) in IPRs filed by Nokia Corp. against optical networking patents owned by Alexander Soto and Walter Soto and asserted by inventor owned-NextGen Innovations, LLC.

The Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property held a hearing today featuring witnesses who weighed in on the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act, which was introduced in June by Senators Chris Coons (D-DE), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI). Today’s was the sixth hearing of the IP Subcommittee this year. The goal of the PREVAIL Act is to reform the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in a number of ways.

On November 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision in Allgenesis Biotherapeutics Inc. v. Cloudbreak Therapeutics, LLC, dismissing Allgenesis’ appeal after an unsuccessful challenge to Cloudbreak’s patent claims at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The Federal Circuit ruled that Allgenesis lacked Article III standing to bring the appeal for failing to establish an injury in fact stemming from potential infringement liability or the impact of the PTAB’s priority determinations on the scope of Allgenesis’ patent rights.