Posts in Government

On Friday, an amicus brief was filed at the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of major trade associations in the computer software, automotive, retail and other industries, urging the Court to grant Tesla’s petition for writ of certiorari following the denial of its petitions for inter partes review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging patent claims owned by self-driving technology company Granite Vehicle Ventures. The industry groups claim that the Court’s review is necessary to address so-called “patent trolls” and policies adopted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that effectively eliminate the use of IPRs to combat these allegedly bad actors.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Friday that it lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal filed by T-Mobile US, Inc. and T-Mobile USA, Inc. against KAIFI LLC arising from a dispute over a patent settlement agreement, transferring the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In T-Mobile US, Inc. v. KAIFI LLC, Circuit Judge Chen authored the opinion for a panel that included Circuit Judges Taranto and Schall, concluding that the underlying disagreement over settlement contract language did not necessarily raise a substantial question of patent law.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) posted a final order to its website on August 27, publicly reprimanding a California patent attorney for submitting a claim construction chart containing citations that generative AI invented — not to case law, but to the intrinsic record of the patent in suit. In re Brian E. Mitchell, Proceeding No. D2026-16, resolves by settlement. Mitchell executed the agreement on July 20, 2026, and the OED Director on July 21. Tricia Choe, Associate General Counsel for General Law, approved it on July 27 on delegated authority from Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and USPTO Director John A. Squires.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued two decisions today in related appeals arising from inter partes review (IPR) proceedings between Apple Inc. and Smart Mobile Technologies LLC. In the case, Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, the CAFC affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) determination that Apple failed to prove certain claims of two Smart Mobile patents unpatentable as obvious, while vacating and remanding a separate portion of the same judgment that had found other claims obvious. In the companion appeal, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB’s decision rejecting Apple’s obviousness challenge to a third related patent. Circuit Judge Stark authored both opinions for a panel that included Circuit Judges Reyna and Hughes.

An AI interaction can give rise to a Rule 56 disclosure obligation. Not because AI was involved, but because of the information the interaction put before you. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has already drawn that line. Its April 2024 guidance says there is no general obligation to disclose that an AI tool was used; the duty is implicated when the use rises to the level of materiality under Rule 56(b). The trigger is materiality, not AI.

In 2025, a patent dispute between Chinese companies in the camera-module space drew close attention across the industry — SUNNY v. AAC [Patent Reexamination and Invalidation Department Decision No. 566288, et al.]. The case ended with 11 patents invalidated, four of them in their entirety. There was a single reason: the claims were not supported by the specification.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Zilkr Cloud Technologies, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., vacating in part and affirming in part a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision. The PTAB had held claims 1, 2, 6 through 8, and 12 through 14 of a patent owned by Zilkr Cloud Technologies, LLC unpatentable as obvious, and the CAFC remanded for further proceedings. The opinion was authored by Chief Judge Moore.

Yesterday, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced that the agency had designated as informative a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision in an ex parte appeal reversing an examiner’s rejection of patent claims directed to the isolation and detection of microRNA (miRNA) to determine a patient’s risk of radiation exposure for improper Markush groupings. Drawing primarily upon case law from the predecessor to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Federal Circuit, the informative designation is notable for its alignment with recent Federal Circuit case law encouraging flexibility in Markush grouping analyses.

Following the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) July 2026 proposal to require third-party requesters for ex parte reexamination (EPR) to identify all real parties in interest (RPIs), the 26 comments submitted to the Office reveal a sharp divide among the patent owners, tech companies, industry associations and individuals who weighed in. The comment period closed August 21, and the commenters included 17 organizations, associations or companies and 8 individuals (a duplicate comment was submitted by the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO).

For many small businesses, uncertainty in patent prosecution can mean the difference between a strong issued patent and either abandonment or suboptimal coverage. One source of uncertainty in today’s system is final office action practice. Recent data suggests that roughly 42% of patent applications receive a final office action, meaning they are not allowed initially or after a response to a non-final office action. While receiving a final office action does not close the door on a patent application, it does give examiners greater discretion in directing its path. This discretion is unnecessary and can be eliminated by tying U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) fees more closely to the actual content and complexity of each office action response.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Friday issued a precedential decision denying a number of inventors’ associations standing to sue the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for failing to amend alleged inaccurate language on the cover of issued U.S patents. District Judge Rachel Kovner of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation, authored the precedential opinion of the court.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing are compressing the invention cycle itself. That compression is no longer theoretical. Discovery Loop, a new public benefit corporation founded by leading former Google and Google DeepMind researchers, has announced a mission to automate experimental loops of the scientific method; the AItonomy Foundation similarly frames automated experimental loops as a path to accelerating science and engineering. The trend is also visible in Faraday, a recent AI model for automated scientific discovery that links model-driven hypothesis generation with iterative experimentation and R&D workflows, further illustrating how AI systems are moving from passive analysis toward active participation in the scientific method.

About 20 years ago, Hotels.com had a series of commercials starring a character called “Captain Obvious.” This character would make observations that were funny because they were apparent to all. And that is what non-patent lawyers think of when it comes to something that is obvious. That is also the approach taken in a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) cases, i.e. the “Captain Obvious” approach. Specifically, the recent Nielsen (The Nielsen Co. (US), LLC, v. TVision Insights, Inc., —

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in 10x Genomics, Inc. v. Parse Biosciences, Inc., affirming three Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decisions that found all challenged claims of three 10x Genomics patents unpatentable as obvious. Circuit Judge Cunningham wrote for the court, joined by Circuit Judges Taranto and Bryson, and rejected each of the four challenges that 10x Genomics raised on appeal.