Posts Tagged: "patent"

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Friday affirmed a district court finding that two inventors should be added as co-inventors to a patent for a method of transporting gaseous fluids. The CAFC concluded that the record “does not leave us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made” in finding the inventors contributed significantly to the invention.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today issued a Request for Comments (RFC) that will be published in the Federal Register tomorrow seeking input from the public on how to better incentivize commercialization of innovation, particularly in green and critical or emerging technologies. According to the RFC, the comments received “will be used to evaluate possibilities for amplifying the impact of our current work, and to explore new ways to support the transfer of innovation to the marketplace.”

Efforts by high-tech companies to undermine both the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023 and the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act ramped up this week, with a joint letter sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee by a number of tech industry organizations on Monday and a campaign launched by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) yesterday.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a brief opinion authored by Judge Chen today that rejected Daedalus Blue LLC’s appeal of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding certain claims of its patent on a data management system unpatentable. The PTAB held that U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132 was unpatentable as obvious over combinations of three prior art references: “Gelb”, “Tivoli”, and “Callaghan.” Daedalus in part argued on appeal that the Board incorrectly found that Gelb is analogous art because Gelb “is not reasonably pertinent to the problems identified in the ’132 patent.”

Artificial Intelligence (AI) stands at the forefront of innovation, transforming industries and shaping the future of global economies. Although AI innovators understand the value of intellectual property (IP) protection for their innovations, they often don’t know how to secure the right kind of IP protection for their innovations. Employing a process for systematically mining AI innovations to create a map of those innovations is one option for identifying the most suitable form(s) of IP protection to obtain, based on the innovation and the business model within which that innovation will be commercially deployed.

The Judicial Conference of the United States announced yesterday that it is strengthening its policy on random case assignments in order to limit the practice of judge shopping in U.S. district courts. According to the press release, the policy would assign judges via a district-wide random selection process in “all civil actions that seek to bar or mandate state or federal actions, ‘whether by declaratory judgment and/or any form of injunctive relief.’”

On March 11, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal issued an order on rehearing that upheld the attorney’s fee award levied against petitioner OpenSky Industries over its abuse of process during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Although Director Vidal’s order delayed the date by which OpenSky must pay, the ruling nixed OpenSky’s challenges to the more than $400,000 attorney’s fee award in favor of patent owner VLSI.

In what has to be the unkindest cut of all, those expected to benefit from the proposed misuse of march-in rights so the government can impose drug price controls say they don’t support it either. The proponents promoting this hot house theory have seen it denounced by those who created the Bayh-Dole Act as being unauthorized under their law and seen evidence they can’t refute that it would have little impact on drug prices but would devastate small business entrepreneurs in all fields of federally supported research and development. And now they’ve lost the generic drug industry.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday, March 7, vacated a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that had held unpatentable certain claims to CoolIT Systems, Inc.’s patent. U.S. Patent 9,057,567 is titled “Fluid Heat Exchange Systems” and is directed to a system for fluid heat transfer to cool electronic devices. On appeal to the CAFC, CoolIT argued that the PTAB erred in construing one of the claim terms, “matingly engaged” and that even under the PTAB’s construction, the asserted prior art did not meet the matingly engaged limitation.

This week was an above-average one for patent filings in both the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and in district courts. The PTAB had two new post grant review (PGR) petitions and 39 new inter partes review (IPR) petitions, for a total of 41 new filings. And the district court also had heightened activity with 75 new filings.

On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Weber, Inc. v. Provisur Technologies, Inc., reversing the finding of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that certain operating manuals with limited dissemination and confidentiality restrictions did not qualify as prior art. The Federal Circuit’s decision concluded that the Board misapplied the analysis for meeting the public accessibility standard for a printed publication to qualify as prior art.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today reversing the Western District of Texas district court’s indefiniteness analysis and explaining that it improperly found a contradiction between two claim limitations to arrive at its indefiniteness holding. Amperex Technology Limited filed an action seeking declaratory judgment of noninfringement and challenged the validity of certain claims of Maxell, Ltd.’s U.S. Patent No. 9,077,035 for a rechargeable lithium battery and Maxell asserted infringement of the patent in a separate action. The two actions were consolidated in the Western District of Texas and the court ultimately held that two of the “wherein” clauses of the sole independent claim 1 of the ‘035 patent contradicted one another.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in a precedential decision today mostly upheld a district court ruling that found Chewy, Inc. did not infringe several claims of one IBM web advertising patent and that granted summary judgment of patent ineligibility on certain claims of another. However, the decision, authored by Chief Judge Kimberly Moore, reversed the district court’s finding of noninfringement on one of the five asserted claims of one patent, remanding the case for further proceedings on that issue.

The recent U.S. auto workers strike has had a wide reaching impact on the automotive industry, including spurring investors to review their current automotive investments. While significant events like the strike often cause this sort of reaction, more common practices from automakers should – but usually don’t – draw investor attention, including intellectual property management. Our recent three-part analysis on the financial impact of patent lapse strategies for major automotive manufacturers found, among other data points,that major auto brands overspend several million dollars annually by paying fees to renew non-strategic U.S. patents. Investors who understand the patent lapsing strategies of these automotive companies can more effectively evaluate their growth plans and innovation strategies. 

Participants in the U.S. and European patent systems face a rapidly changing landscape as the European patent with unitary effect and Unified Patent Court (UPC) are off to a successful start. The UPC has positioned itself alongside U.S. district courts, the International Trade Commission (USITC), and the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) as a leading patent litigation forum…. Accordingly, participants in these patent systems constantly engage with U.S. and European patent attorneys, and now interact more frequently with attorneys who can represent them before the UPC (“UPC representatives”). This article describes key differences in the training, development, and skill sets of U.S. patent attorneys, European patent attorneys, and UPC representatives.