Posts in Government

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires stated in his Senate confirmation hearing last year that “with born strong patents and robust quality marks we can reclaim America’s primacy, revitalize industry and growth, proudly export our culture, boost national security and improve our lives.” If the goal is to have “born strong patents”, we must be honest about what is born with patents and what is not. For instance, a credible mark of novelty is born with every patent—that much is clear. However, novelty is not just technical newness—it is also market impression. If novelty were only technical newness, people would own patents without their technology ever being used in the market. There would be no point to the patent system. This means that the rest of patents—their assertion power, damages recovery power, term limitation, claim bundling provision, inter partes review (IPR) fee requirement, and more—must also be part of the birth. This is how to create born strong patents.

The latest chapter in the long-running saga of inventor Gil Hyatt is beginning to unfold. The current fight is over prosecution laches—and whether the doctrine even exists. In his last appeal to the Federal Circuit, Hyatt argued that prosecution laches is not available in Section 145 proceedings because it is inconsistent with the Patent Act of 1952, as confirmed by recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (2014) and SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products (2017). Whether Hyatt is correct about prosecution laches being inconsistent with the 1952 Patent Act, it is clear that the Supreme Court has unequivocally ruled in both Petrella and SCA that laches simply does not exist when there is a statutorily prescribed timeframe to act.

Spurred by reports that House leaders are trying to fast-track a bill to separate the U.S. Copyright Office from the Library of Congress, a coalition of consumer rights, industry, open internet and library groups has again sent a letter to the House Committee on Administration urging it to consider the bill on the regular timeline to avoid “unintended consequences.” A full committee markup of the bill is scheduled for tomorrow, March 18,

Yesterday, U.S. Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, and Peter Welch (D-VT) sent a letter addressed to Liang Rubo, CEO of Chinese technology company ByteDance, urging the immediate shutdown of ByteDance’s video generation platform Seedance 2.0. Calling ByteDance’s recent pledges to respect copyright “a delay tactic,” the Senators join a growing chorus of copyright advocates raising alarms about rampant infringement being committed by users of Seedance and other generative artificial intelligence (AI) platforms.

Last week, consumer electronics giant Samsung filed responses to requests for Director Review by patent owner Netlist in validity proceedings instituted at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Netlist is contending that the trials should be dismissed because Samsung failed to identify all real parties in interest (RPIs) in the PTAB petitions challenging Netlist patent claims directed to dynamic random access memory (the ‘087 patent) and memory modules for reduced noise in signal transmissions (the ‘731 patent).

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC) today released its 2026 International IP Index, which flagged concerning trends about the “growing erosion of IP leadership” among the world’s high-performing economies, according to the report’s authors. In particular, the report noted that scores in eight EU Member States have declined this year, although the top ten rankings remained the same from 2025. The United States was again number one, with a relatively stable score of 95.15% compared with last year’s 95.17%.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a memo late on Wednesday indicating that the USPTO Director will consider additional discretionary factors for institution of inter partes review (IPR) and post grant review (PGR) going forward that focus on the extent to which products involved in those proceedings are manufactured and sold in the United States.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Monday issued a precedential decision holding that the principle of forfeiture can apply even where an intervening  correction of inventorship was granted that would have directly affected the outcome of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceeding. The opinion was authored by Judge Cunningham.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced Thursday that it will convene an Appeals Review Panel (ARP) to examine the issues raised by a 2025 rehearing decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) with respect to obviousness-type double patenting (ODP). In Ex Parte Baurin, issued on December 18, 2025, the PTAB denied an examiner’s request for reconsideration of the Board’s November 8, 2024, decision reversing the examiner’s ODP rejections of several claims of US Application No. 17/135,529, directed to antibody-like binding proteins. The Board found that the reference patent the examiner relied upon for its ODP analysis, U.S. Patent No. 10,882,922, was not a proper ODP reference because it was later filed and later expiring than the application in the present case.

China, the EU and the UK are quietly rewriting the rules on standard-essential patents (SEPs) in ways that strip value from U.S. innovators’ technology. As the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) finalizes its 2026 Special 301 Report, Washington has a rare chance to call out these trading partners for turning global licensing into a government-managed exercise that drives royalty rates below market value.

In a recent Substack post discussing Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) policy and current U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reforms, former USPTO Deputy Solicitor Thomas Krause referenced my PTAB case as part of his broader argument. Because my case was cited in that discussion, the factual record matters… My case does not support the claim that the PTAB primarily exists to correct examiner errors or clean up patents issued over missed prior art.

Under today’s patent system, inventors are only allowed to procure one type of patent—the standard utility patent. Despite the amount of power in the standard utility patent, this restriction oppresses the American inventor. Large numbers of people cannot afford the costs to procure and enforce the standard utility patent, and for many of the ones who can, it often does not pack enough firepower to allow them to fully recover. Because each invention is different, each instance of infringement is different. A single $20,000-$30,000 utility patent is not even close to being capable of addressing every one of those instances. The solution is very simple—different types of patents must be created.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday partially reversed and remanded a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that had found Medivis, Inc. failed to show certain claims of Novarad Corp.’s patient imaging patent unpatentable as anticipated and also failed to show other claims unpatentable as obvious. The CAFC affirmed as to anticipation but reversed as to obviousness, holding that the Board relied on the wrong legal standard in finding no motivation to combine.

Welcome back to Cool AI Patents of the Month, where we spotlight inventive developments at the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property. In this installment, we take a look at two standout innovations—one that could transform how we watch sports, and another that may reshape how our vehicles understand the road ahead. Both illustrate how quickly AI is integrating itself into our daily lives.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order list including the denial of a petition for writ of certiorari filed by Dr. Stephen Thaler that challenged federal agency and court rulings preventing copyright registration for an image generated entirely by artificial intelligence (AI). In following the U.S. Solicitor General’s call to deny cert to Thaler’s appeal, the Supreme Court declined invitations from both sides of the AI authorship debate to clarify the copyrightability of works that are substantially AI-generated.