Posts in USPTO

America’s $150 billion per year private sector investment in biopharmaceutical research and development (R&D) does more than offer comfort. Increasingly, American innovators are curing or effectively eliminating the medical threat from many diseases and conditions. Witness, cures for Hepatitis C, GLP-1s for weight loss, COVID-19 vaccines, and HIV prevention at virtually 100% effectiveness, alongside stem cell therapies, gene editing, and CAR-T therapies for previously untreatable cancers. For those suffering from rare or untreatable disease, as well as chronic conditions, this is an era of unprecedented hope.

On Friday, a series of computer and automotive industry trade organizations representing most of the top filers of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging the Court to grant Google’s petition for writ of certiorari that ultimately challenges the PTAB’s settled expectations doctrine as developed under the current U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) administration.

Most patent portfolios are overbuilt and under-managed. That is not a criticism of any particular company or patent department. It is simply the predictable result of how patent portfolios are created. Companies innovate. Business leaders demand more filings. Engineers generate invention disclosures. Outside counsel prosecute applications. Patents issue. Then years pass, products change, markets move on, competitors pivot, and strategic priorities evolve. Often—if not frequently—the patent portfolio remains the same, as if legacy assumptions and strategy remain relevant even though they no longer match business or market realities.

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John A. Squires initiated a sua sponte Director Review on May 27 to investigate whether an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner violated its Sotera stipulation. The order stays the IPR proceeding and requires briefing from Nokia Technologies OY, ASUSTeK Computer Inc., and ASUS Computer International on whether a violation occurred and what the appropriate remedy should be. 

It is not news to anyone in the industry that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed. Thanks to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) leadership, discretionary denials have increased, institution rates have dramatically dropped, and that means patent owners are finally seeing relief at the front end of the inter partes review (IPR) process. There is great reason for the justifiable optimism you hear from patent owners.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that had found Go1 Pty, Ltd. failed to prove the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,784,113 unpatentable as obvious. In the opinion, Judge Stoll found that the PTAB improperly dismissed expert testimony as conclusory when the expert relied on professional judgment and common sense to explain a simple design choice. The case involves an inter partes review (IPR) petition filed by Go1 challenging claims 1-16 of the ‘113 patent, which is owned by OpenSesame, Inc. and directed to an open and interactive e-learning system and method.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires on Tuesday, May 26, filed a Brief in Opposition to Gilbert Hyatt’s petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, which asks the Court to review—and ultimately reject—the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s existing doctrine of prosecution laches. Hyatt filed his petition on March 2, 2026. The specific question presented to the Justices is: “Whether the PTO may invoke the equitable doctrine of ‘prosecution laches’ to deny a patent to an applicant who has complied with all the Patent Act’s timeliness provisions.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued two decisions Friday in Pictometry International Corporation v. Roofr Inc., affirming separate Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decisions that held all claims of two Pictometry International Corporation patents unpatentable for obviousness over combinations of prior art.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit Inc., affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision finding all claims of Samesurf’s patent directed to synchronized web browsing sessions unpatentable for obviousness. The decision was authored by Circuit Judge Stark and joined by Circuit Judges Dyk and Chen, who held that the Board correctly construed the central disputed claim term.

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.

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.