Posts in Government

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is going through a significant digital transformation. With the Office seemingly updating its procedures as rapidly as the latest AI model, it’s important to track what this means for IP practice. AI is transforming the tools governing how the Office now processes what is filed, and the Office’s vacillations on AI inventorship should be top of mind for every practitioner.

A patent claim of invention is considered obvious, and thus unpatentable, in light of a combination of prior art references if a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have had a reason, or motivation, to combine the references as recited in the claim. There are responses, or defenses, to such a finding of obviousness, including if the combination renders the reference unsatisfactory or inoperable for its intended purpose – also called “frustration of purpose.

On Thursday, May 14, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires issued a Director Discretionary Decision in which he denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) petition and marked the opinion precedential, underscoring six key principles that should guide whether the Office institutes America invents Act (AIA) proceedings.

On May 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential ruling in mCom IP, LLC v. City National Bank of Florida affirming the Southern District of Florida’s dismissal of patent owner mCom IP’s complaint after finding the asserted patent claims obvious on the same grounds as related patent claims invalidated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). However, the Federal Circuit found that the district court improperly concluded that the case was exceptional, leading the appellate court to reverse the attorney’s fee award and attorney sanctions after finding the plaintiff did not develop evidence of frivolous litigation conduct.

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. It wasn’t until the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, which injected the incentives of patent ownership into the system, that the situation changed. And the result was dramatic.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

Artificial intelligence is no longer a futuristic talking point in patent practice. It is already being deployed by patent practitioners who understand a simple truth: AI is not a substitute for legal judgment, technical understanding, claim strategy, or client counseling. When implemented properly, AI is a force multiplier. It can compress timelines, improve consistency, reduce low-value friction, provide meaningful portfolio intelligence, and allow practitioners to spend more time on the work that actually requires professional expertise.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a published opinion in Malone v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office affirming the Eastern District of Virginia’s grant of summary judgment to the USPTO after finding that the agency properly withheld documents sought by US Inventor’s Josh Malone pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request related to administrative patent judge (APJ) paneling at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The Fourth Circuit found that decision drafts circulated to nonpanel APJs were subject to FOIA’s exemption for predecisional and deliberative documents and were not unprotected ex parte communications.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. AG 18, LLC, affirming a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and holding that DK Crown Holdings Inc., formerly known as DraftKings, Inc. (DK), failed to prove that claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,978,205 was unpatentable during inter partes review (IPR).