Posts Tagged: "USPTO"

On November 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision of the District of Nevada granting summary judgment of noninfringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Pharma Tech Solutions, Inc. (Pharma Tech) sued LifeScan, Inc. (LifeScan) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,153,069 (the ‘069 patent) and 6,413,411 (the ‘411 patent). The patents are directed toward home use, blood glucose monitoring systems for individuals with diabetes. Previous monitoring systems determined blood glucose concentration from the Cottrell current drawn and measured from a patient’s oxidized blood sample. The specification of the ‘069 and ‘411 patents claims to improve on these systems by “eliminating several of the critical operator dependent variables that adversely affect the accuracy and reliability” of the previous systems. The invention performs multiple Cottrell current measurements (opposed to just the one) and converts these into analyte concentrations. It then compares the results for better accuracy, notifying the user if the results fall outside of an acceptable range of each other to indicate a system error. Ultimately, the CAFC found that because LifeScan’s meter does not convert diffusion limiting current readings to analyte concentration measurements and then compare the measurements to detect errors, and because Pharma Tech is barred in its infringement argument by prosecution history estoppel, LifeScan did not infringe Pharma Tech’s ‘069 or ‘411 patents.

This year has included many twists and turns for IP stakeholders, particularly on the patent side. Most recently, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex has called into question the constitutionality of Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions, and perhaps the Board itself. Elsewhere, Congress has been—unsuccessfully—attempting to step in and clarify U.S. patent law since early in the year, while the courts have continued to muddy the waters of patent eligibility law. The Federal Trade Commission’s case against Qualcomm, and Judge Lucy Koh’s decision in the case, have further called into question the United States’ ability to compete on the innovation front going forward. And yet, there have been some wins in other areas this year, including at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and there remain many reasons to be hopeful about the year ahead. IPWatchdog asked some IP experts to share what they have to be thankful for on the IP front this Thanksgiving, despite all the uncertainty. Hopefully, as those of you who celebrate the holiday enjoy your Thanksgiving dinners, these sentiments will inspire you to be thankful too.

On November 23, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) ruling in a pair of inter partes review (IPR), which had invalidated all claims of two related patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,014,243 and 8,718,158. TQ Delta, the patent owner, appealed the PTAB’s holding that all claims of the challenged patents would have been obvious when viewed in light of the prior art references, including U.S. Patent Nos. 6,144,696 (Shively) and 6,625,219 (Stopler), asserted by Cisco System Inc. and the other appellees (collectively, “Cisco”). Admissibility of evidence, claim construction, and due process were among several other challenges raised by TQ Delta on appeal. Because the PTAB’s determination of obviousness was not supported by substantial evidence, the CAFC reversed.

In Airbus S.A.S v. Firepass Corporation, Appeal 2019-1803 (November 8, 2019), Airbus appealed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) reversal of the examiner’s rejection of new claims presented by Firepass in an inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,418,752 (“the ‘752 patent”). In particular, the inter partes reexam returned to the Court from a prior appeal (Airbus SAS v. Firepass Corp., 793 F.3d 1376 [Fed. Cir. 2015]) in which the Court vacated and remanded to the Board to consider Airbus’s challenge to the newly presented claims. Airbus disputes the Board’s finding that an asserted prior art reference, which just so happens to be a patent issued to the same inventor as the ‘752 patent, is nonanalogous art.

On October 30, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property heard from five witnesses on ways to improve patent quality at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The Subcommittee subsequently posed questions to the witnesses, including professors Colleen Chien, R. Polk Wagner, and Melissa Wasserman, to supplement their testimony. Those witnesses have now submitted their responses, which expand upon their various suggestions for improving patent quality.

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reviewed an appeal of the PTAB’s final decision that Game and Technology Co. Ltd.’s (GAT) Patent No. 7,682,243 (the ‘243 patent) was obvious over the prior art, and that inter partes review (IPR) was not barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). The CAFC held that the PTAB properly asserted that claims 1-7 of patent ‘243 were obvious in light of the prior art and that an IPR was not barred because the petitioner, Wargaming Group Limited (Wargaming), was not properly served with a complaint alleging infringement of the [‘243] patent over a year before it filed its petition for an IPR.

About a month ago, Steve Brachmann authored an article concerned with a brief given to Capitol Hill staff by Professors Frakes and Wasserman. The article highlighted fundamental, as well as practical, problems with Professors Frakes’ and Wasserman’s proposal (i.e. doubling the number of patent examiners as a means to reduce the number of invalid patents and thereby prevent societal harms) and how it could be detrimental to the U.S. patent system. The IPWatchdog article points to several issues with Frakes’ and Wasserman’s proposal, but does not discuss other approaches or options, such as using artificial intelligence tools to improve the patent application review process—an option that USPTO Commissioner for Patents Drew Hirshfeld said in a recent Senate IP Subcommittee hearing that the Office is actively pursuing. According to PWC, 72% of executives testify that AI improves internal operations while freeing up workers to perform more creative and meaningful tasks. In fact, while some might fear that “robots” will take human jobs, technological innovation has been proven to generate more jobs than it takes, while automating tasks, like patent search.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issues an updated AIA Trial Practice Guide following SAS Institute v. Iancu; the AM-FM Act is introduced into Congress to update copyright law for terrestrial radio stations; VoIP-Pal.com defeats remaining IPRs challenging its patents at the institution phase; the Copyright Royalty Board announces cost of living adjustments in certain royalty rates; a Senate report shows that U.S. law enforcement didn’t adequately respond to Chinese IP theft for 20 years; China outpaces the rest of the world in terms of blockchain patent filing activities; and Apple joins Intel’s antitrust actions against Fortress Investment Group’s patent assertions.

Nearly four months ago, the Federal Circuit for the first time addressed the applicability of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to IPRs, holding in Celgene Corp v. Peter “that the retroactive application of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings to pre-America Invents Act (AIA) patents is not an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment” Celgene Corp. v. Peter, 931 F.3d 1342, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Since then, the court has continued to reject similar Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)-related Takings Clause claims on the merits. E.g., Collabo Innovations v. Sony Corp., No. 2018-1311 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 5, 2019). Unsurprisingly, Celgene filed a request for an en banc rehearing, and the government has just this week filed its response. Both Celgene’s en banc petition and the government’s response address the merits of Celgene’s constitutional claim—but as we hinted at in an earlier article analyzing the Celgene decision, there is a serious question whether the Federal Circuit should have even reached the merits of the Takings Clause issue in its panel opinion. In light of Supreme Court Takings Clause precedent, the Federal Circuit may want to either request supplemental briefing to decide whether it should have addressed the constitutional question in the first place, or potentially even revise the panel opinion and leave this issue to be decided in another case.

In Part I of this article, we examined the top three rejections for design patent applications, which are due to non-enablement, inconsistency, and ambiguousness. The fourth most common reason for rejection of design patents is for objections to the drawing disclosure, which we will discuss here. Objections to the drawings occur when something is incorrectly shown in the drawings, but the drawings are still understood by the Examiner. In the stereo receiver example above, if the bottom plan view was present in the original disclosure but the front elevational view did not show shading on the feet, the Examiner would likely issue an objection, stating that shading was not shown on the front surface of the feet and should be. (If the bottom plan view was not part of the originally filed drawings, then the Examiner would be issuing a Sec. 112 rejection instead of merely an objection since there’s not enough information to understand the shape of the feet and the feet will have to be disclaimed by converting them to broken lines.) Objections to the drawings are usually easy to overcome, but they still must be overcome by submitting replacement sheets. This decreases the efficiency of your operation and increases client costs, so objections are important to minimize by carefully reviewing your drawings before submission.

Trademark and copyright enforcement remains a significant challenge for licensors of popular brands across sports, entertainment, fashion and other industries. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of three dozen industrial countries, estimates counterfeit goods account for 3.3% of global trade. Brand owners cannot rely on the belief that their trademark and copyright registrations will be respected, and they cannot confine their enforcement to demand letters and traditional intellectual property litigation. Rather, a brand owner must avail itself of additional approaches to address both traditional and newer platforms offering infringing products. We continue to see an increase in online infringements, especially in connection with certain e-commerce sites and targeted advertisements on social media. Under the current law, enforcement against online providers can be difficult, particularly when compared to traditional infringement hot sports in the brick-and-mortar marketplace. Flea markets, swap meets and other brick-and-mortar shopping venues reported verdicts and settlements in the last 10 years that confirm commercial landlords/owners can be held liable for the trademark infringement activity of their tenants, with courts around the country extending liability for trademark infringement beyond just the party selling infringing products.

“It’s up to you to do the right thing and fix this,” said Professor Arti Rai of The Center for Innovation Policy at Duke University School of Law near the end of a hearing on what Congress should do in the wake of the Arthrex decision yesterday. Rai was one of four IP scholars who testified during the hearing of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet; all witnesses seemed to agree that the courts will not fix the problem soon enough to ensure the requisite certainty for U.S. patent owners and businesses, so Congress must act. In Arthrex, the Federal Circuit found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) were unconstitutionally appointed and removed the civil service protections they previously were deemed to enjoy—although, as Professor John Duffy of the University of Virginia School of Law pointed out, if the Federal Circuit ruled that the APJs can’t have tenure, that arguably means they never did. “If you go back to Marbury v. Madison, courts don’t actually strike down statutes; they simply say what the law is,” Duffy said.

As one of about 46,000 registered practitioners in the United States, most of us are unfortunately too well acquainted with Section 101, 102, and 103 rejections from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). But it may be surprising that most rejected design patent applications are not rejected under these sections. Instead, the least favorite number of the design patent practitioner is 112. While Section 112 rejections on utility applications are generally easily overcome, that is often not always the case with such rejections on design applications. Since there are only about 30,000 design applications issued each year, each of the 46,000 registered practitioners handle on average less than one design application per year! So, for those unfamiliar with the quirks of design patent practice, which is most of us, and since design patent applications have a relatively high allowance rate of 84% (see the USPTO Data Visualization Center/Design Data page, it might be tempting to rely on your patent draftsperson to prepare what they think are adequate drawings, copy the mostly boiler-plate specification language, and just file the application. But that can be a costly mistake.

For weeks now I have been asking the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to confirm how many Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) are currently employed by the Office, a request that predates the Federal Circuit’s controversial Arthrex decision, but which was renewed after the decision issued. For reasons that I cannot explain, the Office refuses to provide an answer to what seems to be a straightforward and legitimate question: How many APJs are currently employed by the USPTO? Regardless of the USPTO’s reluctance to identify the number of APJs employed, it seems safe to say that the employment rights and futures of several hundred APJs hang in the balance as the result of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex, which found that the hiring of APJs violated the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Federal Circuit did, however, attempt to provide a gift to the Office by rewriting the section of the America Invents Act (AIA) they found to create the problem, and by so doing turned APJs into inferior officers. In order to do so, the Federal Circuit turned those uncertain number of APJs into employees-at-will, which allows for them to be fired by the Director of the USPTO. This is significant because certain APJs have not been willing to get on board with changes implemented by Director Iancu. The belief of those APJs who have not been “team players” is that they are judges and are not controlled by and do not answer to Director Iancu. Well, with the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex that employment dynamic changed overnight.

This week in Washington, D.C., the House Intellectual Property Subcommittee will explore the  impact of the Federal Circuit’s recent Arthrex decision on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) administrative patent judges on Tuesday. Other House subcommittees will look at small business contributions to smart construction projects and the National Institute of Health’s (NIH’s) efforts to improve flu vaccine innovation, while the Senate Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government will explore FCC control over the upcoming 5G wireless spectrum auction. Elsewhere in the Senate, the Energy Committee will look at several bills related to energy innovation, including an ARPA-E reauthorization bill. Off of Capitol Hill, the American Enterprise Institute will look at how the adoption of automated technologies will affect the future of employment in the U.S. Army.