Posts in USPTO

A March 27, 2026, petition filed by Security First Innovations (SFI) does more than challenge a single reexamination proceeding—it shines a spotlight on a structural vulnerability in how post-grant review is functioning in practice. At its core, the filing argues that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is allowing what amounts to a procedural end-run around the statute, which is supposed to streamline post-grant challenges and lead to estoppel if the patent owner prevails.

Amicus briefs have now been posted to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) site in Ex Parte Baurin, a 2025 rehearing decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) with respect to obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) that is being reviewed by an Appeals Review Panel (ARP). While most of the amici are arguing in favor of the Board’s analysis, one brief submitted by Professors Mark Lemley and Lisa Larrimore Oullette contends that U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) precedent supports the examiner’s rejections and that Allergan’s holding is inapplicable here.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Wednesday in Fuente Marketing Ltd. v. Vaporous Technologies, LLC, affirming the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) and holding that the Board correctly dismissed an opposition to a trademark application after finding no likelihood of confusion between the applied-for mark and registered marks.

During its latest “USPTO Hour” webinar, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recapped Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) updates over the last year-plus, including statistics that show drastic changes in the overall institution rate and number of denials of institution for inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. According to the USPTO’s figures (see chart below), in October 2024 the average institution rate was around 65%, whereas in February 2026 the overall institution rate was around 37%.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision Tuesday in In re Brian McFadden affirming a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The CAFC determined that the PTAB correctly found claim 14 of Brian David McFadden’s patent application directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court agreed that “claim 14 does not contain an inventive concept sufficient to transform this abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Since the court affirmed the ineligibility determination, it concluded that it “need not reach anticipation” under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in ironSource Ltd. v. Digital Turbine, Inc. dismissing Israeli software developer ironSource’s appeal of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decision to grant mobile app tech developer Digital Turbine’s revised motion to amend patent claims challenged by ironSource in post-grant review (PGR) proceedings. The opinion, authored by Chief Judge Moore, determined that ironSource lacked Article III standing to pursue its appeal because it failed to establish an injury in fact based on Digital Turbine’s veiled threats that its patent claims covered aspects of discontinued ironSource products.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on Monday held the first of three planned Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)-focused Listening Sessions, this one focused on the PTAB and Life Sciences. Participants in the first panel of the day, who mostly spoke for the branded pharmaceutical industry, discussed the topic of patent thickets and the role of the PTAB in vetting life science patents.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., affirming a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and holding that the Board correctly construed a limitation of one independent claim of Centripetal’s patent and properly found that a prior art reference anticipated the claim.

In modern Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) practice, aggressive procedural strategy is no longer the exception—it is the operating norm. As the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has increasingly relied on discretionary denials to constrain inter partes review (IPR), petitioners have adapted. One emerging tactic is the strategic use of ex parte reexamination as a fallback mechanism—deployed either after discretionary denial or, after an unfavorable IPR, or after the petitioner sees the handwriting on the wall and before a final written decision (FWD) is issued in an IPR.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced today that it is deploying an artificial intelligence (AI) tool that will finally solve the problem of patent eligibility analysis for examiners.

Since 2024, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued multiple AI-specific guidance documents on inventorship and subject matter eligibility, including the February 2024 Inventorship Guidance, the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Update, and the November 2025 memo rescinding the February 2024 guidance. The pace of change has created a prosecution environment where the strategies that worked 18 months ago may actively undermine a patent application filed today. The inverse is true; applications drafted for today’s guidance may be structurally unprepared for the next revision.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Tesla, Inc. v. Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC, affirming in part, reversing in part, and vacating in part a final written decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The CAFC determined that the PTAB improperly construed a limitation of one independent claim but correctly construed limitations of other independent claims. The court reversed the finding of non-obviousness for claim 1, vacated the judgment regarding its dependent claims, and affirmed the finding of non-obviousness for the remaining claims.

Amicus briefs in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) review of issues raised by a 2025 Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) rehearing decision regarding the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) were due on Friday, March 27. At least one amicus is urging the Office to affirm the decision’s holding and clarify that the focus should be on “whether there is any unjustified extension of term when determining if an ODP rejection is appropriate” in order to create more consistent outcomes in examination and to harmonize the approaches of the PTAB and examining corps.

On remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on Thursday reaffirmed its decision that The Broad Institute, Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and President and Fellows of Harvard College (“Broad”) were the first inventors of the use of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing in eukaryotic cells.