In a recent post, I discussed a September Federal Circuit decision (Cooperative Entertainment v. Kollective Technology) that reversed a lower court dismissal of a patent infringement case on Section 101 eligibility grounds under the Supreme Court’s 2014 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank test. Just weeks after that ruling, the Federal Circuit in IBM v. Zillow … 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
One of the threshold requirements for obtaining a patent under U.S. law is that the invention is a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof…” In other words, the subject matter of the invention must be eligible for patenting. Many courts have used this requirement … Continue Reading
The conflict in Ukraine on 24 February prompted a number of European measures in many fields, including intellectual property. The Russian government responded by taking initiatives in this area as well. What are these measures and their consequences?… Continue Reading
In the latest example of the escalation of tensions between Russia and the West, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin last week issued a decree that owners of Russian patents from countries that Russia considers to be unfriendly are no longer entitled to any compensation for compulsory licensing of their patents. In particular, the decree (translated … Continue Reading
The Spanish government has approved a draft bill to reform the three main industrial property laws: the Trademark Law, the Industrial Design Law and the Patent Law. The purpose of the changes are to order to solve various problems that industrial property right holders face today in Spain.… Continue Reading
In a blog post published in February 2021 (here), we addressed regulatory initiatives from the Chinese government aimed at moving China from a country dependent on “imported” patents (i.e., patents filed by foreign entities) to a country with great autochthone creativity. The initiatives were intended to reduce or eliminate fraudulent and low-quality patent applications and … Continue Reading
In June 2021 the Shenzhen Administration for Market Regulation (Shenzhen AMR) issued the first ever provisions on administrative injunctions against the infringement of a design patents, including online infringements. It was a revolutionary provision. Without need to prove irreparable damage, a right holder could seek quick relief by filing a simple administrative complaint. Now … Continue Reading
On February 5, 2022, China acceded to Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs. The Hague provisions will become effective in China on May 5, 2022. China has been negotiating such accession for a few years, and it was partly anticipated by certain measures of harmonization introduced with the latest amendment to the patent law in … Continue Reading
In January 2021, I noted that the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) saw a flurry of new complaints filed in the second half of 2020, particularly in November and December. See here. A similar pattern emerged at the end of 2021, culminating with eight Section 337 complaints filed between December 15 – 31, 2021.… 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
We previously wrote that a co-pending ITC Section 337 investigation virtually guarantees that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) will exercise its discretionary power to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 324(a) when considering a petition for inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR). See ITC Section 337: Kiss of Death … Continue Reading
In a patent infringement lawsuit, a plaintiff often seeks to recover lost profits damages—the profits that the patent owner would have made but for the competitor’s alleged infringement—instead of a lower reasonable royalty. A plaintiff is not automatically entitled to such damages, though, even upon a finding of infringement. Rather, the patent owner must prove … Continue Reading
When considering a petition for post-grant review (PGR) or inter partes review (IPR), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a) and 324(a). The PTAB’s Consolidated Trial Practice Guide provides that, when exercising its discretion, the Board may consider “events in other proceedings related to the … Continue Reading
The Federal Circuit recently dismissed an interlocutory appeal filed by LG Electronics as untimely because LG filed its notice of appeal more than seven months after the district court’s order disposing of all LG post-trial motions except for its post-trial motion on damages. The opinion stands as a lesson to all parties contemplating an appeal … Continue Reading
A recent Federal Circuit decision has re-affirmed prior guidance on the pleading requirements for a plaintiff alleging patent infringement. The decision was issued in Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am., Case No. 2020-2218, on July 13, 2021. In short, while a plaintiff need not prove its case at the pleading stage, a plaintiff … Continue Reading
On June 21, 2021, the Shenzhen Administration for Market Regulation (Shenzhen AMR) issued the first ever administrative injunction against the alleged infringement of a design patent. The decision was based on a set of local IP regulations implemented in 2019 to increase protection of intellectual property (IP) rights associated with the booming local innovation in … Continue Reading
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced the final deadline for submission of applications for its Patents for Humanity COVID-19 award: The submission deadline is 5 p.m. ET, September 30, 2021. Patents for Humanity is the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) awards competition recognizing innovators who use game-changing technology to … Continue Reading
The progress on the ratification of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPC Agreement) had been delayed due to two constitutional complaints filed before the Constitutional Court in Germany. It was not the first attack on German UPC legislation. A first act of approval had been adopted by the Bundestag in March 2017, but … Continue Reading
Much of the discussion about the Federal Circuit’s precedential opinion in Yu et al. v. Apple, Inc. et al. has focused on the perceived confusion and dysfunction of U.S. patent law that invalidates a claim directed to an “improved digital camera” as a patent-ineligible “abstract idea.” After delving into the underlying record, this author posits … Continue Reading
A patent must teach one skilled in the relevant art how to make and use the claimed invention, as required by 35 U.S.C. §112(a). The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 608.01(p) explains that unless an invention is disclosed such that one skilled in the art will be able to practice it without undue experimentation, … 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
To mitigate potential conflicts of interest and to improve the public’s understanding of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) procedures, the agency has recently made various amendments to its rules relating to the conduct of registered patent attorneys and agents. The resulting changes mirror some well-recognized provisions of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) … Continue Reading
In a recent post, we discussed the importance of complying with the US Patent and Trademark Office’s duty of disclosure under Rule 56 of the Rules of Practice. This post focuses on the existence of this duty throughout the entire prosecution of a patent application, in a specialized factual context involving a priority application outside … Continue Reading
