Posts in IPWatchdog Articles

To say we live in perplexing times is an understatement. Everything seems to be shifting beneath our feet, often with seemingly little thought. One example is the move to change how the federal government supports research.

Artificial intelligence has moved beyond the experimental phase in legal practice. The legal industry is no longer debating whether lawyers can or should use AI tools, or whether AI will affect the economics of law firm and in-house legal department operations. Those questions have been answered. AI is already reshaping how legal work is performed, how legal departments manage demand, how law firms are expected to price services, how patent teams analyze portfolios, and how clients evaluate outside counsel.

When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a new, easier-to-administer version of a popular cancer medicine called Keytruda a few months ago, patients celebrated. But critics quickly cried foul, accusing the drug’s manufacturer of gaming the patent system to preserve its monopoly and prevent cheaper competitors from coming to market. 

Gerasimow Law is seeking an Associate Attorney to provide core support to a Partner and Senior Associate across a diverse intellectual property docket. This role offers direct involvement in the technical and legal life cycle of a case, from initial filing through post-grant challenges. This position is fully remote with no in-office requirement. Candidates located in Illinois or Texas are a plus.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today affirming a district court ruling that Mylan Pharmaceuticals’ generic hypertension drug did not literally infringe Actelion Pharmaceuticals’ U.S. patents for its own hypertension drug, Veletri®. The CAFC also affirmed the district court’s holding that Actelion had not proven and was barred from asserting infringement by an equivalent.

Yesterday, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published a trademark alert highlighting actions that the agency has taken recently to remove fraudulent and otherwise invalid marks from the federal trademark register. In 11 administrative orders issued by the USPTO since the beginning of last October, the agency has either invalidated or is targeting for invalidation around 10,500 trademark applications and registrations for reasons including forged attorney signatures and inventing non-existent trademark registration requirements and fees.

During a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property hearing on the Oversight of the U.S. Copyright Office on Tuesday, the intersection of copyright law, artificial intelligence, and executive branch interference were the key focuses. Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter provided critical updates on the Copyright Office’s modernization efforts. However, the hearing was punctuated by sharp rebukes from Democratic senators regarding former President Donald Trump’s recent attempts to assert executive control over the legislative branch agency.

Wolf Greenfield is seeking an experienced Patent Agent who is fluent in both English and Korean (written and spoken) to join its Prosecution & Counseling department. This role is ideal for a current Patent Agent with a strong technical background who is interested in applying their expertise to intellectual property strategy, patent preparation, and prosecution for clients that span from major consumer products companies and academic institutions to start-up companies. This position can be based in the firm’s Boston, MA, New York, NY, or Washington, DC office, or fully remote.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today affirming the dismissal of a pro se lawsuit brought by three inventors who contested the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) refusal to grant them reduced filing fees. The CAFC found that the inventors failed to adequately plead Article III standing, as their own representations to the USPTO undermined any claim of ownership in the disputed application.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Monday affirmed a district court decision awarding attorney fees and costs to Nextremity Solutions, Inc. for an infringement suit brought against it by Extremity Medical, LLC, but denying attorney fees and costs for the successful parallel inter partes review proceeding (IPR) Nextremity pursued. The opinion was authored by Judge Lourie.

Wolf Greenfield is seeking an experienced Patent Agent to join its Prosecution & Counseling department. This role is ideal for a current Patent Agent with a strong technical background who is interested in applying their expertise to intellectual property strategy, patent preparation, and prosecution for clients that span from major consumer products companies and academic institutions to start-up companies. This position can be based in the firm’s Boston, MA, New York, NY, or Washington, DC office, or fully remote.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I spoke again with Fran Cruz, Senior Vice President of IP Solutions for Juristat. Our conversation was about a topic that should be top of mind for every patent prosecution firm, every in-house IP department, and every legal operations professional trying to make sense of the current market for patent related legal work. Where is patent prosecution work going, when does work move from firm to firm, when it does move, where is it moving, and what will firms have to do to win—or keep—the patent preparation and prosecution work?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today in Bissell, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, affirming a final determination of the International Trade Commission (ITC) that found no import violation by redesigned vacuum products. The CAFC affirmed the ITC’s refusal to grant an exclusion order and also agreed that the Commission properly determined that Bissel’s products satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement.

For years, design patent practitioners dealing with graphical user interfaces (GUIs) and icons have been shackled to the ghost of Ex parte Strijland. If you wanted to get a case through the USPTO for a GUI or an icon, you had to meticulously include a broken line depicting a display screen or monitor. Under the old MPEP 1504.01(a) regime, the effect of the GUI was treated essentially as surface ornamentation applied to that specific physical screen to satisfy the “article of manufacture” requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 171.