Since the iRhythm IPRs on which we blogged recently, there have been two more (actually, many more) decisions that are leaving petitioners scratching their heads. In Dabico, the Acting USPTO Director discretionarily denied an IPR petition because of “settled expectations,” the same rationale as in iRhythm. The Acting Director went further and criticized the petitioner … Continue Reading
In a set of astonishing identical Director Review decisions, the Acting USPTO Director discretionarily denied five IPR petitions whose proceedings would have concluded over seven months before the underlying patent infringement suit would have gone to trial. The Acting Director reasoned that the petitioner waited too long to file its IPR petitions because, even though … Continue Reading
The patent statute 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) allows the USPTO Director to deny institution of an IPR when “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” In IPR practice, relying on prior art that already had been before the PTO is perfectly acceptable. Under the 2020 decision in … Continue Reading
In Part I of this set of blogs, we discussed the impact of the rescission of former USPTO Director Vidal’s Guidance Memorandum for handling discretionary denials in inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. We also discussed Chief Judge Boalick’s Guidance Memorandum on the rescission. In Part II, we examine a … Continue Reading
Recent actions from the USPTO have engendered a great deal of discussion among the bar practicing before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. On February 28, 2025, acting Director Stewart rescinded former Director Vidal’s Guidance Memorandum for handling discretionary denials in inter partes review proceedings before the Board. On March 24, 2025, Chief Judge Boalick … Continue Reading
Earlier this year, as we discussed here, here, and here, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) proposed a number of sweeping changes to the Office’s patent fees, including a very steep set of fees for filing terminal disclaimers, later continuation applications, and three or more requests for continued examination (RCEs). The … Continue Reading
In a May 10, 2024, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the USPTO proposed sweeping changes in the rules governing the filing of terminal disclaimers. If the USPTO implements the proposed changes, entire patent families could be wiped out if just one claim of one patent in the family is found invalid over prior art. Patent … Continue Reading
Much like word processing with spell check and other now commonplace digital tools were once only the stuff of science fiction, artificial intelligence (AI) is quickly becoming widespread in knowledge work including law practice. IP law is no exception. The use of AI in IP law practice has practical benefits, including the potential for enhanced … Continue Reading
As discussed in two of our recent blogs (here) and here), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) recently proposed substantial patent fee increases for continuing applications and terminal disclaimers. The USPTO is also proposing substantial increases for an applicant to request continued examination of an application whose claims have been rejected, … Continue Reading
As discussed in our previous blog (here), the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) has proposed substantial surcharges for filing continuing applications, depending on the timing of filing. The USPTO is also proposing substantial increases for an applicant to file a terminal disclaimer. As we discuss below, these increases are likely to affect strategies … Continue Reading
The United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) recently proposed patent fee increases could have far-ranging consequences for applicants looking to build a patent family from a single patent application. In this first of a series of blogs, we will discuss the potential consequences of the USPTO’s proposed fee increases for continuing applications, including continuation, … Continue Reading
On March 18, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a Memorandum containing guidance to help patent examiners analyze claim language that may be interpreted as “means-plus-function” or “step-plus-function” language under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The USPTO said that the Memorandum was not a change in practice for examiners. Sometimes, however, how something … Continue Reading
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently published updated guidance emphasizing a very flexible approach to determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in KSR v. Teleflex. The guidelines are written for USPTO personnel but combined with the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), they provide … Continue Reading
Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are becoming an increasingly important part of our lives and are affecting almost every industry. In compliance with section 5.2(c)(i) of the President’s October 30, 2023 Executive Order (EO) 14110, titled “Safe, Secure, And Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)”, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued … Continue Reading
A recent Federal Circuit decision, Allgenesis Biotherapeutics Inc. v. Cloudbreak Therapeutics, LLC, provides some interesting insights into patent challenge strategies, and their consequences, when a potentially infringing product is not yet on the market. Allgenesis, which has been developing a pterygium treatment product using nintedanib, filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition to try to … Continue Reading
A number of district courts, as well as the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, have weighed in on whether and to what extent a patent challenger in an inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may be estopped from making prior art based challenges in a district court litigation. … Continue Reading
Generative Artificial Intelligence is a type of artificial intelligence (AI) that can generate a wide range of content types in response to user prompts. Examples of such content can include text, images, audio and video content, etc. There has been pervasive use of Generative AI over the past few months, to create essays, works of … Continue Reading
The Federal Circuit has refused to uphold the dismissal of a complaint alleging that the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) improperly issued instructions to PTAB judges regarding whether to institute requested patent review proceedings. The complaint alleges that the so-called Fintiv factors – initially set forth in two opinions designated by the … Continue Reading
On October 4, 2022, in a 52-page Director review decision in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding involving recently-formed entity OpenSky Industries LLC, USPTO Director Katherine Vidal sanctioned OpenSky “to the fullest extent of [her] power” because of OpenSky’s abuse of the IPR process, including flaunting of the Director’s discovery orders. The Director applied negative … Continue Reading
On March 24, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Hunting Titan, Inc. v. Dynaenergetics Europe GMBH, affirming — on a procedural technicality — a precedential decision of a Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that granted a motion to amend claims … Continue Reading
For the second time in four months, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued a precedential opinion about forum selection clauses (FSC) in confidentiality agreements. On October 7, 2021, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Ltd. et al., holding that, in a non-disclosure … Continue Reading
On October 12, 2021, the USPTO extended its program for after-final patent prosecution practice, AFCP 2.0, to September 30, 2022. The USPTO initiated the “pilot” program in 2013, to speed up prosecution and to increase contact between Examiners and applicants. Although the USPTO has not issued statistics about the results of the program, applicants still … Continue Reading
In United States v Arthrex, the Supreme Court held that 35 U.S.C. §6(c), which sets forth the authority of Patent Trial & Appeal Board (“PTAB”) Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”), is unconstitutional because APJs effectively wield the power of principal officers (who require Senate confirmation) while being appointed as inferior officers (who do not require Senate confirmation) … Continue Reading
On June 21, 2021, in United States v. Arthrex, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Patent Trial & Appeal Board (“PTAB”) Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”) are unconstitutionally appointed because they effectively wield the power of principal officers while being appointed as inferior officers. 594 U.S. ____ (2021).… Continue Reading
