Posts in USPTO

On Tuesday, May 5, Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires pressing him to answer questions about the Office’s role in filing a trademark application on behalf of the Trump Administration for Trump’s “Board of Peace.”

In its recent petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, Google argues that patents can be invalid at any time, even decades after issuance, and therefore should remain open to inter partes review (IPR) challenges, regardless of age or how long they have been relied upon. At first glance, this sounds like a defense of patent quality. Coming from one of the most frequent users of the Patent Trial and Appeal board (PTAB) over the past decade — and arriving just as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) “settled expectations” doctrine begins to limit late-stage IPR challenges — it raises a sharper question: why now?

A person recently approached me at church with excitement regarding a software process he developed. His company was so pleased with the result that it is filing a patent, listing him as the inventor. This person knew that I had some kind of patent backstory, so he asked for my thoughts. My name is Jeffrey A. Killian, and I am the patent applicant in the Federal Circuit Court case # 2021 -2113 (In Re: Killian). I took no pleasure in telling my  friend at church that his patent application will be rejected. Plus, the official notice will have my precedential case quoted all over his rejection. With friends at church like me, who needs enemies? 

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a significant Decision on Remand on Monday, April 27, 2026, clarifying when estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) attaches and—critically—what it means to “request” a proceeding “before the Office.” The ruling arises from an increasingly common set of circumstances—HID had initially filed an inter partes review (IPR) against CPC Patent Technologies’ U.S. Patent No. 9,665,705, and subsequently requested ex parte reexamination requests of that same patent. Monday’s decision clarifies that a party is estopped from “requesting” ex parte reexam at the moment the IPR final written decision issues when the USPTO has yet to order ex parte reexam.

The University of North Carolina at Charlotte brought together leaders from government, academia, industry, and the defense community for its 2026 Invention of the Year Awards, an evening that showcased the university’s growing role as a national engine of innovation, commercialization, and technological impact.

Whether or not the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) wants to admit it, over most of the last generation there has been a secret examination docket. Not surprisingly, such a secret examination docket is strictly prohibited by federal law. A newly filed joint status report in Morinville v. USPTO brings this issue to the fore and underscores the lack of transparency and accountability of secret internal patent review programs at the USPTO. Procedurally, the latest filing seeks to expose the USPTO shadow docket through a new round of discovery, which is currently being considered by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Wednesday in Federal Express Corporation v. Qualcomm Incorporated, vacating a determination by the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that certain claims of a Federal Express Corporation patent were unpatentable as obvious. The CAFC also held that it could not review the PTAB’s refusal to determine whether all real parties in interest were identified in the petition for inter partes review (IPR).

Welcome back to Cool AI Patents of the Month, where we highlight innovations that blur the line between science fiction and real-world engineering. Last month, we looked at AI-generated voice replicas, particularly in sports broadcasting. That concept is no longer theoretical. Major League Baseball players have reportedly entered into agreements enabling the creation of AI-driven digital avatars, allowing fans to engage directly with AI-generated versions of their favorite players. The takeaway is clear: personality and likeness are being productized. What once seemed futuristic is quickly becoming commercially relevant.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) established World IP Day to commemorate April 26, 1970, the date the WIPO Convention officially took effect. Each year, the occasion serves as a global reminder of the role that intellectual property plays in encouraging innovation and creativity. This year, the World IP Day theme is “IP and Sports Ready, Set, Innovate,” recognizing the increasingly complex relationship between intellectual property rights and the multibillion-dollar global sports industry.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision Tuesday in Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., affirming in part and reversing in part 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 claims 1 through 3, 5 through 13, and 15 through 20 of Centripetal Networks, LLC’s patent directed to network threat detection unpatentable for obviousness. The court reversed the PTAB’s determination regarding claims 4 and 14, finding those claims unpatentable for obviousness as well.

Today, the Council for Innovation Promotion (C4IP) published the third edition of its Congressional Innovation Scorecard, which provides a measure of each lawmaker in the U.S. Congress in terms of their impact on the nation’s intellectual property (IP) system. Although this year’s scorecard acknowledges higher numbers of pro-copyright bills introduced into Congress, it concludes that members of Congress are still failing to engage fully and effectively on national IP issues to the detriment of America’s future as an innovation leader.

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied a petition for certiorari challenging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) use of Rule 36 summary affirmances in appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). CPC Patent Technologies petitioned the Court in March of this year asking the Justices to consider the question: “Whether the Federal Circuit can affirm a PTAB decision without opinion in contravention of the clear statutory requirement of an ‘opinion’ when reviewing such decisions.”

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (UPSTO) announced today that it will be extending the Artificial Intelligence Search Automated Pilot Program (ASAP!) until June 1, 2026, to gather additional information and continue evaluating the program’s effectiveness. The Pilot was first announced in October 2025 and is meant to “evaluate the impact of sharing the results of an automated search prior to examination of an application.” 

A number of groups and individuals self-described as “representing consumers, patients, health care providers, and academic experts in pharmaceutical policy and patent law” have submitted a letter to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee urging members to quickly advance the “Eliminating Thickets to Increase Competition  (ETHIC) Act,’’ which was introduced in the House of Representatives last May by Representative Jodey Arrington (R-TX) along with two other Republicans and four Democrats.