This week in Other Barks & Bites: the Federal Circuit okays the U.S. International Trade Commission’s flexible analysis of the technical and economic prongs of the domestic industry requirement; the University of California tops the National Academy of Inventors list of top universities obtaining U.S. utility patents last year; the EU’s highest court rules that first requests for data access under the General Data Protection Regulation may be excessive if part of a systemic pattern of entering data claims for compensation; and more.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires stated in his Senate confirmation hearing last year that “with born strong patents and robust quality marks we can reclaim America’s primacy, revitalize industry and growth, proudly export our culture, boost national security and improve our lives.” If the goal is to have “born strong patents”, we must be honest about what is born with patents and what is not. For instance, a credible mark of novelty is born with every patent—that much is clear. However, novelty is not just technical newness—it is also market impression. If novelty were only technical newness, people would own patents without their technology ever being used in the market. There would be no point to the patent system. This means that the rest of patents—their assertion power, damages recovery power, term limitation, claim bundling provision, inter partes review (IPR) fee requirement, and more—must also be part of the birth. This is how to create born strong patents.

The latest chapter in the long-running saga of inventor Gil Hyatt is beginning to unfold. The current fight is over prosecution laches—and whether the doctrine even exists. In his last appeal to the Federal Circuit, Hyatt argued that prosecution laches is not available in Section 145 proceedings because it is inconsistent with the Patent Act of 1952, as confirmed by recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (2014) and SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products (2017). Whether Hyatt is correct about prosecution laches being inconsistent with the 1952 Patent Act, it is clear that the Supreme Court has unequivocally ruled in both Petrella and SCA that laches simply does not exist when there is a statutorily prescribed timeframe to act.