Squires Orders Appeals Panel to Review PTAB Rehearing Decision Reversing ODP Rejections

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced Thursday that it will convene an Appeals Review Panel (ARP) to examine the issues raised by a 2025 rehearing decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) with respect to obviousness-type double patenting (ODP). In Ex Parte Baurin, issued on December 18, 2025, the PTAB denied an examiner’s request for reconsideration of the Board’s November 8, 2024, decision reversing the examiner’s ODP rejections of several claims of US Application No. 17/135,529, directed to antibody-like binding proteins. The Board found that the reference patent the examiner relied upon for its ODP analysis, U.S. Patent No. 10,882,922, was not a proper ODP reference because it was later filed and later expiring than the application in the present case.

Other Barks & Bites for Friday, March 6: WIPO Issues PCT Filing Study; CAFC Affirms Use of Unaccused Devices in Royalty Determination; USTR Notorious Markets List Highlights Live Sports Piracy

This week in Other Barks & Bites: the World Intellectual Property Organization releases a study showing a slight uptick in international patent filings for the second straight year; Moderna stock rises nearly 10% on news of its patent infringement settlement over COVID-19 vaccine technology; the Federal Circuit says there is no per se rule against consideration of noninfringing features in a reasonable royalty determination; and more.

USTR Report May Stem Trade Partners’ Weak-Patent Agenda

China, the EU and the UK are quietly rewriting the rules on standard-essential patents (SEPs) in ways that strip value from U.S. innovators’ technology. As the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) finalizes its 2026 Special 301 Report, Washington has a rare chance to call out these trading partners for turning global licensing into a government-managed exercise that drives royalty rates below market value.

When Policy Narratives Override the Facts: A Response to Recent Commentary on My PTAB Case

In a recent Substack post discussing Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) policy and current U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reforms, former USPTO Deputy Solicitor Thomas Krause referenced my PTAB case as part of his broader argument. Because my case was cited in that discussion, the factual record matters… My case does not support the claim that the PTAB primarily exists to correct examiner errors or clean up patents issued over missed prior art.

A Rose by Any Other Name? The Perils of Personal Names as Brand Names

For founders, naming a brand after oneself can feel like the most natural—and powerful—choice. A personal name signifies authenticity, craftsmanship, and accountability. Consumers feel they are not just buying a product, but a person’s vision, values, and reputation. In the apparel, beauty, and skincare space in particular, a founder’s identity often is the brand. That alignment can drive early momentum and deep consumer loyalty. But the same naming strategy that builds value at launch can create significant legal and business complications at scale—especially at exit.

Moderna Settles with Genevant and Arbutus, Ending LNP Patent Dispute

In a press release issued on Tuesday, Genevant Sciences and Arbutus Biopharma announced they have entered into a global settlement with Moderna, Inc. that could result in a payment of up to $2.5 billion. The announcement stated that the settlement resolves all U.S. and international patent litigation concerning the unauthorized use of Genevant’s and Arbutus’ lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery technology in Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines. The agreement came just days before a highly anticipated jury trial was scheduled to begin in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Opinion: Keep Going Squires USPTO: Inventors Want a Streamlined Claim Set Pilot Program 2.0

Under today’s patent system, inventors are only allowed to procure one type of patent—the standard utility patent. Despite the amount of power in the standard utility patent, this restriction oppresses the American inventor. Large numbers of people cannot afford the costs to procure and enforce the standard utility patent, and for many of the ones who can, it often does not pack enough firepower to allow them to fully recover. Because each invention is different, each instance of infringement is different. A single $20,000-$30,000 utility patent is not even close to being capable of addressing every one of those instances. The solution is very simple—different types of patents must be created.

Subscribe to IPWatchdog

This is the best way to stay informed. We send a daily roundup of our latest news, press releases, and events.

Get Email Updates