In a short but instructive opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit delivered a reminder about the relationship between claim language, written descriptions and the limits of what a patent’s claims can cover. Dynapass owns U.S. Patent No. 6,993,658, covering methods for authenticating users on a secure computer network using a two-component … Continue Reading
As America celebrates its 250th year, the pulse of innovation that animated the Founders beats louder than ever. From the first patent debates to today’s courtroom clashes over artificial intelligence, George Washington’s legacy as a mill owner, pragmatic leader, and founding architect of the U.S. patent system remains strikingly relevant. Drawing on Washington’s own letters … Continue Reading
In a recent precedential decision by the Federal Circuit, the Court delivered a cautionary reminder that errors or omissions in a provisional patent application can have significant consequences for a patent’s priority claim and ultimately its validity. In Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 2025-1427 (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2026), the Federal Circuit affirmed … Continue Reading
The Federal Circuit recently issued a precedential decision not only reiterating that mere data collection is abstract under 35 U.S.C. § 101, but emphasizing that district courts must provide a sufficiently articulated basis for denying attorney’s fees. The opinion is yet another cautionary note to patent owners and attorneys seeking to enforce patents directed to … Continue Reading
On April 1, 2026, USPTO Director Squires issued an Official Gazette Notice allowing patent owners a limited amount of time to respond to a request for ex parte reexamination (EPR) before the Office determines whether the request presents a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ). Under this new procedure, within 30 days of being served … Continue Reading
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in the litigation between Columbia University and Gen Digital is notable not only for its treatment of software patent eligibility, but also for what it says about potential expansions in the geographic limits of patent damages, especially in the context of software patents. As discussed in our prior blog, the … Continue Reading
After over a decade of litigating, winning multiple appeals and inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, and finally earning a $185 million jury verdict against cybersecurity giant Gen Digital Inc. that operates the Norton antivirus brand, Columbia University saw a massive setback with last week’s Federal Circuit opinion. The opinion touched on several topics in modern … Continue Reading
In the mid‑90s, Elastica captured a restless cultural moment with Connection—a song pulsing with the irresistible pull toward something new. Thirty years later, automotive and transportation companies are chasing the same energy through the rise of connected vehicles and new AI enabled features. Connected vehicles are becoming software-defined, sensor‑rich, and permanently online. This evolution expands … Continue Reading
As the 2026 Winter Olympics captivate audiences, one sport in particular―curling―stands out as the perfect metaphor for the challenge of prosecuting AI inventions before the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Both arenas demand foresight, adaptability, and strategic thinking, whether it’s guiding a stone across the ice or shepherding an AI patent application through evolving … Continue Reading
In a precedential opinion analyzing eligibility of software and web-based patents, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a patent infringement complaint in US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC. The Court examined key issues in patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, particularly for web … Continue Reading
As readers may recall, in February 2024, the USPTO issued guidance on inventorship in AI-assisted inventions, which we wrote about here. On November 26, 2025, the USPTO rescinded that guidance and replaced it with new guidance. By way of background, the February 2024 Guidance analyzed the naming of inventors for AI-assisted inventions using the Pannu … Continue Reading
You couldn’t sleep. You recently worked through the night on your bench experiments, even when the security guard told you to go home, painstakingly perfecting the process to align with your company’s plans for a chemical manufacturer to scale your product. As the morning light peeked across your lab bench, your overcaffeinated fingers clicked the … 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
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
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
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
