Posts Tagged: "USPTO"

In October of 2023, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in Great Concepts, LLC v. Chutter, Inc., 84 F. 4th 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2023) that a fraudulent filing for incontestability under Section 15 of the Lanham Act is not a proper ground for the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) to cancel a registration under Section 14 of the Act. In so holding, it endorsed prior rulings to the effect that fraud in filing a Section 8 affidavit of continuing use, or a renewal application under Section 9—acts of “maintaining” a registration—constitutes “obtaining” a registration within the meaning of Section 14, while rejecting earlier TTAB decisions that had treated Section 15 affidavits the same way.

On December 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision in ParkerVision, Inc. v. Vidal affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) invalidation of ParkerVision’s patent claim to down-converting electromagnetic (EM) signals in wireless communication networks. In so holding, the Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB’s use of claim construction conflicting with parallel proceedings in the Western District of Texas on the grounds that the patentee defined the term “storage element” as a lexicographer.

On December 6, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced the new membership of its public advisory boards providing oversight of the patent and trademark operations of the agency. The announcement comes about a week after the USPTO’s Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) publicly released its most recent annual report summarizing the agency’s patent operations with recommendations to end user fee diversion and publicize data from America Invents Act (AIA) trials at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Office (USPTO) and Apple, Inc. file responses to his petition for writ of mandamus, the owner of the trademark APPLE JAZZ has filed a reply of his own charging that “the USPTO is not sincere and has never been sincere about deciding this case.” The latest briefs relate to a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Charles Bertini, owner of APPLE JAZZ, who has been embroiled in a fight with Apple over rights to the mark since 2016.

It was an overall below-average week for patent filings at both the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and district courts. The PTAB had only 15 new PTAB petitions—all inter partes reviews (IPRs), while the district court had only 24 new complaints filed. There were two more Fintiv discretionary denials this week, with the Board denying institution of two IPRs filed by IBM against inventor-controlled DigitalDoor Inc. [funding unknown] patents broadly related to various aspects of data security technologies.

In March 2023, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) addressed in Penumbra, Inc. v. Rapidpulse, Inc.,  IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 (Mar. 10, 2023), a key issue in inter partes reviews: how to establish a reference patent as prior art based on the filing date of an earlier-filed application, such as a provisional. The Board held that the requirements of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015), do not apply for post-America Invents Act (AIA) patents. Penumbra, IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 at 29-35. On November 15, 2023, U.S Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal designated the Penumbra decision precedential. This article explores the evolution of the law on this issue.

In September 2023, one man grabbed the authors’ attention with his astonishing story about defending his trademark registration from an opposition by professional trademark attorneys using ChatGPT. His months-long battle began in December 2022, less than a month after the public launch of the now infamous AI chatbot. Nine months later, Jamiel Sheikh — an entrepreneur, tech-guru, and adjunct professor — survived the pressure from formal proceedings and obtained a settlement from his opposer without spending a dime. As young trademark attorneys, we were horrified yet extremely curious about what he had done. This article is the result of speaking with Sheikh about his experience and the evolving needs and expectations of sophisticated legal service consumers.

An event held Monday by the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), and moderated by former U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Andrei Iancu, featured a number of high-profile political and professional figures in the intellectual property space debating approaches to strengthening the U.S. patent system, with an emphasis on national security. Representative Deborah Ross (D-NC), who serves on the U.S. House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, first joined Iancu to discuss her reasons for supporting the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act.

It seems likely that Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi 598 U.S. 594 (2023) will be one of the most significant, if not the most significant Supreme Court patent decision of 2023. Its holding that a claim to a genus of antibodies must be enabled to the full scope of species within that genus was emphatic and—coming from our highest court—about as final as stare decisis can guarantee. Forty years ago, I was knee deep in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and court proceedings on behalf of laser pioneer, Gordon Gould. A 1983 decision in Gould’s favor by an appellate court effectively shut down efforts by the USPTO and laser manufacturers to derail Gould’s patent portfolio, ultimately leading to widespread licensing of Gould’s patents. But there was one point in that 1983 decision that might be viewed as inconsistent with Amgen’s holding.

Recently, Wen Xie argued on IPWatchdog that the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) have reached different conclusions regarding “the creative and conceiving capabilities of machines,” which leads to intellectual property (IP) law being self-contradictory. According to Xie, the USCO presumes that artificial intelligence (AI) is creative, while the USPTO does not reach a similar conclusion regarding AI inventorship. I disagree.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced today that it is launching a pilot program to help promote semiconductor innovation by expediting examination for qualifying patents. The program is meant to support the objectives of President Biden’s Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) and Science Act, which was signed into law in August 2022. The CHIPS and Science Act provided $280 billion in federal funding to encourage the domestic production of semiconductor products in the United States as well as to fund research and development projects in advanced technological fields like quantum computing and artificial intelligence. The law also provides for a $10 billion investment into the development of regional innovation and technology hubs and establishes other programs supporting science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) educational programs.

On September 13, the Global Innovation Policy Center of the U.S. Chamber published its “IP Principles” paper declaring the Chamber’s “Beliefs about Intellectual Property.” It was promptly endorsed and signed by 32 external IP thought leaders, including the heads of nearly all major IP associations and organizations, and individual experts such as a former Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), two retired judges (including myself), and leading IP academics…. In my view, the Chamber was exactly right to call for a “reset” in the policy debate over IP rights.

Several attorneys associated with patent monetization firm IP Edge are being referred to their state disciplinary bars, the Texas Supreme Court’s Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Department of Justice for their conduct in directing several individuals, including a fried chicken restaurant owner and a surgical assistant, to undertake liabilities associated with patent litigation in U.S. district court without disclosing the interests of IP Edge, which stood to gain 90% of the gross recovery from the asserted patents.

Just before the Thanksgiving break, a number of amici submitted briefs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) asking the en banc court to rehear a case that many feel has a good chance of helping to clarify the law around the judicially-created doctrine of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting (ODP). Cellect, LLC filed its petition for rehearing en banc on November 13, asking the full court to consider whether the August panel decision should be overturned. In that decision, authored by Judge Lourie, the court held that patent term extension (PTE) and patent term adjustment (PTA) are not the same for purposes of an obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) analysis.

Here we go again! We’ve heard the story in the past, which is sadly all too common. A patent owner prevails in federal district court, and also prevails at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR) challenge, but somehow finds themselves still fighting an ex parte reexamination. How is this possible? Perhaps something will be done—this time—because the abusive, harassing challenger is Chinese company TikTok, who is seeking to invalidate the very same claims it failed to invalidate in an IPR that was denied institution on the merits.