Posts in Government

Over the past year, while advising clients on standard essential patent (SEP) matters and following the rapid development of SEP litigation in Brazil, I found myself revisiting a question that foreign clients often ask: Is Brazil really a jurisdiction where patent rights can be effectively enforced? The question is particularly common among technology companies evaluating enforcement strategies across multiple jurisdictions. While Brazil is one of the world’s largest markets, many foreign patent owners remain less familiar with its courts than those of the United States, Europe, China or Japan. Recent SEP litigation provides an interesting lens through which to answer that question.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today in Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Hetero Labs Limited, affirming a preliminary injunction that blocks Hetero Labs Limited from launching a generic version of the neurological drug Nuedexta. The court also vacated a district court order that had excused Otsuka from posting a bond pending appeal, remanding the issue for further proceedings. Circuit Judge Dyk dissented in part from the majority’s claim construction and would have reversed the injunction.

Most patent attorneys know the Jerome Lemelson story—the prolific inventor whose aggressive use of continuation and continuation-in-part applications resulted in some patents remaining pending for decades, earning the label of “submarine patents.” While Lemelson’s tactics sparked controversy and eventual legislative reforms aimed at curbing undue delays, one principle emerged clearly from his experiences: new matter in patent law must receive a new priority date…. To patent applicants, 35 U.S.C. § 132(a) means that the detailed description of their non-provisional patent applications must be perfect when filed, and that even if new information is discovered after filing, no changes can be made. In practice, this is an extremely harsh standard, and is disproportionately punitive to small business inventors who lack the deep pockets to absorb repeated filing costs and years of delay.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), in a Per Curiam opinion, today affirmed a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) ruling that the mark MON AMI is confusingly similar to the previously registered mark, AMÌ, and that MON AMI could therefore not be registered.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s closely watched decisions in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook, which together clarified the scope of presidential authority to remove certain federal officials from office, the Court today denied the Trump Administration’s request to stay a lower court order temporarily restoring Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter to office while her challenge to her removal proceeds in court. The Court emphasized, however, that “[t]he denial of the application is not a ruling on the merits of the legal issues presented in the litigation,” leaving the substantive dispute for a later day.

On the same day it granted a trademark petition, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in a number of patent cases as its term nears an end, including the closely-watched case of Hyatt v. Squires, which challenged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) approach to the doctrine of prosecution laches. In addition to the Hyatt case, the Court also denied cert today in Finesse Wireless LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, et. al.; Polar Electro Oy v. Firstbeat Technologies Oy; and Ortiz & Assoc. Consulting, LLC v. Vizio, Inc.

Last week, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires issued a decision denying institution of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings petitioned by tech giant Apple to challenge patent rights owned by WeCrevention, the intellectual property holding subsidiary of Taiwanese semiconductor developer Etron Technology. Director Squires’ ruling continues the ongoing crackdown against gamesmanship at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) by petitioners pursuing positions inconsistent with district court litigation to increase their odds of invalidating competitor patent rights.

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) has materially changed how examiners are instructed to apply the law on patentable subject matter. In March 2026, CIPO replaced its November 2020 practice notice on computer-implemented inventions, medical diagnostic methods, and medical uses. The 2026 notice represents an important development for current Canadian prosecution practice.

The United States Senate Committee on Finance today held a hearing to consider the nominations of five individuals to be Commissioners of the International Trade Commission (ITC). Two of the nominees—Peter-Anthony Pappas (R) and David Foley (R)—have played key roles in IP policy on the Hill over the last several years. Introducing Pappas was Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), under whom Pappas presently serves as   Director of Intellectual Property Policy for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Tillis Chairs the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property (IP).

In an order issued earlier this week, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires granted Director Review and partially vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Final Written Decision that found several claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,828,425 unpatentable as obvious. Squires remanded the case after finding that the Board did not explain why its conclusion as to claim 2 differed from the outcome of a parallel district court proceeding on the same claim.

Recent developments in ex parte Corteva Agriscience LLC (Reexamination Control 90/019,130; Patent 10,947,555 B2) clarify obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) in the context of patent families with multiple continuations and varying patent term adjustments (PTA)…. In Corteva, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) distinguished Cellect and extended Allergan by holding that a child patent (here, the ’555 patent) is not unpatentable for ODP if it does not expire later than the original patent in the family, including any PTA awarded to the original patent. Below is a figure from Corteva.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Sansone v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, affirming the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia’s dismissal of a pro se inventor’s lawsuit and denial of his motion for summary judgment. Stanley Sansone filed U.S. Patent Application No. 16/255,511 on January 23, 2019, seeking a patent for a wearable thermal device, but a patent examiner rejected all claims. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) affirmed the rejection, after which Sansone sought continued examination.

A trademark dispute between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (“the Church”) and the Mormon Stories Podcast (“the Podcast”) has  this week become a broader fight over the Church’s Mormon-related trademark portfolio. The Church’s complaint, filed on April 17, 2026, alleged that the Podcast’s name, branding, and use of Church imagery create a likelihood of confusion regarding whether the Podcast is actually affiliated with the Church. Meanwhile, the Podcast’s answer to the complaint and counterclaim goes further. Rather than merely denying infringement, the Podcast is now seeking cancellation of multiple Mormon-related trademarks owned by the Church..

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on late Monday issued a notice designating as precedential a Sua Sponte Director Review Order of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision granting institution in three inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The order waived the 14-day deadline for requesting Director Review of a decision to institute trial and denied institution under Hulu, LLC v. Piranha Media Distribution, LLC, IPR2024-01252, Paper 27 (Director Apr. 17, 2025).