PTAB Trial Practice Guide Update Codifies Recent PTAB Decisions and Procedure (Third and Last of a Series)

By Frank Bernstein on August 13, 2019 Posted in Patents, USPTO

Introduction

In two recent articles (see parts one and two of series), we discussed several aspects of a July 2019 Update that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued to the PTAB Trial Practice Guide.[i] This article completes that discussion, addressing motions for joinder, and procedures regarding remands and the PTAB’s default protective order.

1. Motions for joinder

A party may seek to join a proceeding by filing a motion within one month of the date of institution of the proceeding. The July 2019 Update lists identifies the following factors that the Board may consider in deciding a motion for joinder: Continue Reading

PTAB Trial Practice Guide Update Codifies Recent PTAB Decisions and Procedure (Second of a Series)

By Frank Bernstein on August 9, 2019 Posted in Patents, USPTO

Introduction

In a recent article, we discussed several aspects of a July 2019 Update that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued to the PTAB Trial Practice Guide.[1] This article continues that discussion, addressing institution decisions on multiple petitions, and motions to amend.

1. Multiple petitions challenging the same patent

The July 2019 Update discusses the preferred practice based on the PTAB’s experience when there are multiple petitions filed at or about the same time, challenging the same patent. While recognizing that there are circumstances warranting more than one petition challenging patent claims, the Update states: Continue Reading

PTAB Trial Practice Guide Update Codifies Recent PTAB Decisions and Procedure (First of a Series)

By Frank Bernstein on August 7, 2019 Posted in Patents, USPTO

Introduction

In July 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued an Update to the PTAB Trial Practice Guide.[i] The July 2019 Update documents practices and procedures that the PTAB has found useful, and in some instances, summarizes or repeats practices and procedures from precedential PTAB opinions.

The US Patent and Trademark Office’s announcement of the Update identifies eight areas of additional guidance.[ii] This post discusses the first three areas, relating to additional discovery and oral testimony; the revised claim construction standard; and submission of testimonial evidence with a patent owner preliminary response. Later posts will discuss the remaining areas, relating to institution decisions on multiple petitions; motions to amend; motions for joinder; procedures on remand; and procedures regarding the PTAB’s default protective order. Continue Reading

Artificial Intelligence Inventor Asks If ‘WHO’ Can Be an Inventor Is the Wrong Question?

By Benjamin Ford on August 6, 2019 Posted in Artificial Intelligence, Patents

Recently a group out of the University of Surrey provided a new challenge to the definition of inventor, asking “~~who~~ what may be an inventor on a patent?” The group has created an artificial intelligence (AI) named DABUS. Using a first system of networks to generate new ideas, and second system of networks to determine consequences, DABUS invented a beverage container and a flashing device used for search and rescue that are the subjects of patent applications filed in the United States and Europe (which have not yet been published).

Regarding who can be an inventor, the America Invents Act (AIA), 35 U.S.C. § 100(f) defines the term inventor is as: “the individual or, if a joint invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention.” Ryan Abbott, the leader of the University of Surrey group, hoping for an Air Bud scenario (a Disney movie about a golden retriever who is able to join a basketball team when it is discovered there is no rule expressly prohibiting dogs from playing in the league) said “In these applications, the AI has functionally fulfilled the conceptual act that forms the basis for inventorship.” The term “individual” allows for a broad interpretation that does not necessarily exclude AI from being credited as an inventor. If an AI can perform the functions required to be an inventor and is not expressly excluded by the definitions in the statutes, why couldn’t an AI be credited as an inventor?

Continue reading at here.

Ford Scores Win at the Federal Circuit in Design Patent Case

By Majid AlBassam and William Gvoth on August 1, 2019 Posted in Patent Litigation, Patents, US

In its recently issued opinion in Automotive Body Parts Association v. Ford Global Technologies, LLC, the Federal Circuit reaffirms the importance of design patents and their value in an overall patent portfolio strategy for automotive manufacturers and others who may be threatened by aftermarket sales of replacement parts. It also provides guidance on the arguments that can and cannot be used to invalidate a design patent based on functionality of the design and whether, and to what extent, the concepts of patent exhaustion and repair rights can be used to protect potential infringers.

Before The DST Settles: United Kingdom Pushes Ahead With Digital Services Tax

By Squire Patton Boggs on July 25, 2019 Posted in Internet, Technology, UK

On Thursday 11 July 2019, the UK government confirmed that it will bring forward legislation for a new Digital Services Tax (DST) to take effect from April 2020.

Squire Patton Boggs’ Tax team have prepared an alert, analysing the proposed legislation and assessing its possible impact and wider implications, which can be downloaded here.

For more information, please contact Jeremy Cape or Jeff VanderWolk.

Harmful Gender Stereotypes Banned in UK Advertising: An Update

By Carlton Daniel and Katie Rogers on July 23, 2019 Posted in Advertising, UK

As we reported earlier this year, following a six-month adjustment period, a new rule dealing with the depiction of harmful gender stereotypes, has been introduced into the CAP and BCAP Codes, which came into force on 14 June 2019. Despite being just a month in, the ASA has already received complaints about adverts which appear to be in breach.

The new rule applies to broadcast and non-broadcast media advertisements (including online and social media ads) and states that adverts or marketing communications “must not include gender stereotypes that are likely to cause harm, or serious widespread offence”. It was introduced following a public consultation and review of gender stereotypes in advertising by the ASA, which found that the reinforcement of harmful stereotypes can negatively affect individuals, by restricting their aspirations and opportunities for progression in either their personal or professional lives. This in turn, plays a part in the unequal gender outcomes experienced in society. Continue Reading

“It’s Unbelievable Jeff” – The ASA Overturn Sky Bet’s ‘Request a Bet’ Ad Ruling

By Carlton Daniel on July 21, 2019 Posted in Advertising, UK

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) recently announced that it has overturned its original ruling published on 13 March 2019 relating to a Sky Bet TV ad promoting their ‘Request a Bet’ service.

As reported by Carlton Daniel in this blog and in Law360, the ASA had previously found that the advertisement contravened the advertiser’s duty to be socially responsible (outlined in Section 16 of the CAP Code and Section 17 of the BCAP Code), when Sky Sports presenter Jeff Stelling told viewers to “spark your sports brain” and asked, “how big is your sports noggin?” The ad only received two complaints but the regulator considered that the ad inflated the extent of a gambler’s control over the outcome of a wager and erroneously implied that if one generally has good knowledge of sports, they are likely to be a successful gambler. Both elements in turn could potentially generate irresponsible gambling practices. Continue Reading

But life isn’t fair….

By Paul Jinks on July 18, 2019 Posted in Contract, UK

Anyone who negotiates contracts for a living has their own personal war stories of dealing with other parties whose significant negotiating leverage meant they ended up accepting terms which in an ideal world they wouldn’t. But could having the upper hand and using that to extract the best possible deal come back to haunt you? A recent Court of Appeal decision suggests not.

The basic facts of Times Travel (UK) Ltd v Pakistan International Airlines Corporation [2019] EWVA Civ 828 are straightforward: Times Travel was a ticketing agency whose business was almost entirely based on sales of tickets for Pakistan International Airlines (PIA); PIA got into a dispute with Times Travel (and other ticketing agencies) over unpaid commission and during that dispute terminated its contact with Times Travel in accordance with its terms, offering a new contract in its place on less favourable terms and in particular, a requirement that Times Travel waive its claim for unpaid historic commission.

Times Travel took the new contract but subsequently sought to argue that it was still entitled to the unpaid commission because the new contract had been entered into by it under duress.