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
On September 3, 2021, the US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) will announce that it is modifying the COVID-19 Prioritized Examination Pilot Program to accept an unlimited number of applications until December 31, 2021.… 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
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
When you apply for a patent in the United States, you have a legal duty to disclose prior art that could be used to reject your application — in essence, information that may be used against you by the examiner of your application. While persons accused of a crime have a right to remain silent, … Continue Reading
Since March 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has announced numerous types of relief in view of the coronavirus (“COVID-19”) outbreak. As of May 6, relief will be offered to plant patent applicants. Typically, electronic filing of plant patent applications is not permitted. However, in the May 6th announcement, the USPTO indicated … Continue Reading
As discussed in a prior blog post here, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) designated a recent decision on secondary considerations as precedential.[1] At the same time, the PTAB designated two older decisions as informative. While the precedential decision of Lectrosonics focused largely on the nexus requirement … Continue Reading
The Supreme Court recognized long ago that a patentee can overcome a prima facie showing of obviousness by presenting objective evidence of non-obviousness, referred to as secondary considerations.[1] To do so, however, the patentee must establish a nexus between the challenged claims and the objective evidence. In a newly designated precedential decision, Lectrosonics, Inc. v. … Continue Reading
The recent passage of the massive Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act by Congress authorized the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to temporarily adjust its statutory time periods for replies and fees to help applicants file during the COVID-19 outbreak. With countless individuals and businesses significantly impacted by the growing pandemic, … Continue Reading
Other Squire Patton Boggs articles on the SPB Coronavirus Hub have highlighted the many remedial provisions of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020. Intellectual Property owners were not left out. Section 12004 gives the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) the authority to “toll, waive, adjust, or modify” … Continue Reading
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on March 16 announced relief available to customers affected by the coronavirus disease (“COVID-19”) outbreak. In an Official Notice, the USPTO indicated that it considers the effects of the COVID-19 outbreak to be within the meaning of an “extraordinary situation” as provided in 37 CFR 1.183 and … Continue Reading
In a decision that will delight patent applicants, on December 11, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Peter v NantKwest, Inc.[1], holding that the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) was not entitled to recover pro rata salaries for legal staff (in the context of the USPTO, attorney’s fees) as “expenses” in district court litigation. … Continue Reading
On November 25, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) affirmed an appeal from IBM that its invention fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. U.S. Patent Application Number 15/212,216 claimed a method for mining threaded online discussions, where an information handling … Continue Reading
With IPRs here to stay, the USPTO is proposing to drop its BRI standard and interpret claims under the same standards as used by federal courts. Specifically, the USPTO has proposed to change the standard for interpreting claims in inter partes review, post grant review, and covered business method patent proceedings conducted by the PTAB … Continue Reading
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced that the After-Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 (AFCP 2.0) and Quick Path Information Disclosure Statement (QPIDS) pilot programs have been extended to September 30, 2018. AFCP 2.0 and QPIDS are programs intended to further the goals of compact prosecution and foster increased collaboration between examiners and stakeholders. … Continue Reading
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) recently released a Report summarizing the comments received during two roundtable discussions that the USPTO hosted in 2016 on patent subject matter eligibility. Since 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued four major decisions that have transformed subject matter eligibility law, and the USPTO has responded with … Continue Reading
In 2006, the USPTO implemented the accelerated examination program that allows a patent application to be examined more quickly out of turn. The program requires the applicant to file a petition to make special with an appropriate showing. Now, the USPTO has published a ‘Request for Comments Regarding the Continuation of the Accelerated Examination Program’. … Continue Reading
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)’s Post-Prosecution Pilot (P3) Program, launched on July 11, 2016, was terminated on January 12, 2017, just 6 months after it began. In general, the P3 Program combined the benefits of a Pre-Appeal Brief Request for Review and the After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 program (AFCP 2.0), and included … Continue Reading
As a follow-up from November’s roundtable discussion, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) held its second roundtable discussion on the current state of subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101. This meeting focused on the legal boundaries of subject matter eligibility, versus earlier considerations of technicalities and challenges in applying the recent developments … Continue Reading
Following the recent Federal Circuit decisions in BASCOM and McRO, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) responded by providing all stakeholders with a helpful memorandum discussing these cases and how they affect patent subject matter eligibility. In addition, the USPTO continues its outreach efforts to identify where gaps exist in its guidance, and … Continue Reading
