Posts in USPTO

If a sanctions order is the stuff of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) practitioner’s bad dreams, then the issuance of sanctions outright cancelling a client’s patent(s) qualifies as their worst nightmare. That nightmare happened to Longhorn Vaccine (“Longhorn”) in April of this year, when the PTAB canceled five  of its patents as sanctions for Longhorn’s violation of the duty of candor relating to withholding test data that the PTAB deemed relevant to the patentability of the challenged claims. A month later, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal sua sponte ordered Director Review of PTAB’s sanctions order. We now await her decision. This article examines the PTAB’s unprecedented sanctions order in the context of Director Vidal’s recent crackdown on inter partes review (IPR) abuses and provides guidance as to what practitioners can do now to avoid accusations of misconduct before the PTAB.

Amici have submitted briefs and a response has been filed in recent weeks with respect to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for review of a decision that said the USPTO was wrong to reject a trademark application for the mark TRUMP TOO SMALL. The February decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held the Office’s application of Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act to reject TRUMP TOO SMALL was unconstitutional. Specifically, the CAFC panel held that “applying section 2(c) to bar registration of [Steve] Elster’s mark unconstitutionally restricts free speech in violation of the First Amendment.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued two precedential opinions vacating and remanding decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In the first, the court said the PTAB abused its discretion in finding that Netflix, Inc. failed to articulate a field of endeavor to establish analogous art, vacating the Board’s decision in part. In the second, the CAFC vacated the PTAB’s finding that Apple, Inc. had failed to prove Corephotonics’ patent claims unpatentable as obvious, holding that the evidence supported a different claim construction than that adopted by the Board in one decision, and because the Board’s decision in the second inter partes review (IPR) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The regulatory framework for the inter partes review (IPR) process has long been the subject of criticism from both patent owners and petitioners. There is a growing consensus that the existing rules need to be revised to address loopholes and unintended consequences that have developed over the 10 years the America Invents Act (AIA) has been in effect. To that end, both the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and Congress have proposed changes in the regulatory framework. While the two disparate approaches seek to change the IPR playing field, their purpose and approach are significantly different. This article discusses those similarities and differences.

Months after invalidating patent claims undergirding one of the largest infringement verdicts ever entered in U.S. district court, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently received a round of briefing regarding potential sanctions against petitioner Patent Quality Assurance (PQA). Once accused by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) of using the America Invents Act (AIA) process to extort money, PQA argues that its failure to respond to mandated discovery and its alleged misrepresentations regarding exclusive retainer of an expert witness should not result in an attorneys’ fees award as compensatory damages to patent owner VLSI.

This week in Washington IP news, Congress is returning from its summer recess and the Senate is holding several hearings its first week back, including the Senate Energy Committee which turns its focus to artificial intelligence. Elsewhere, CSIS will discuss defense technology acquisition, and ITIF meets with state government representatives to look at how states can help the CHIPS Act succeed.

Pfizer, Inc. and BioNTech SE on Monday hit back at competitor COVID-19 vaccine maker Moderna with inter partes review (IPR) petitions against two Moderna patents on mRNA vaccine technology at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Pfizer/ BioNTech told the PTAB that Moderna’s patents include “unimaginably broad claims directed to a basic idea” and asked the Board to cancel all of the challenged claims of both patents.  

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today in In re Cellect holding that patent term extension (PTE) and patent term adjustment (PTA) are not the same for purposes of an obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) analysis. Specifically, the court said that “ODP for a patent that has received PTA, regardless whether or not a terminal disclaimer is required or has been filed, must be based on the expiration date of the patent after PTA has been added.” The opinion was authored by Judge Lourie.

This week in Washington IP news, as a new school year begins, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) looks at the latest research on invention education. Congress is still on vacation, yet hot topic issues are still being discussed elsewhere, including the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) looking at the state of the Chinese economy, and the American Enterprise Institute discussing what the U.S. federal government can do to patent rights during a public health emergency.

This past week, IPWatchdog was made aware of a petition for post-grant review (PGR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that raises interesting arguments about allegedly inconsistent statements on patentability made during legal proceedings by pharmaceutical firm, Gilead Sciences. Filed in early August, the PGR petition from Atea Pharmaceuticals cites 35 U.S.C. § 112 arguments previously raised by Gilead in other cases to challenge the validity of Gilead’s own patent claims that were allegedly obtained to block Atea’s competing hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatments.

On Thursday, Reuters reported that Google sent a letter to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) criticizing proposed rule changes that the tech firm believes will stifle U.S. innovation. The internet giant expressly pointed to the field of artificial intelligence as a weak point for the USPTO and its patent examiners. The letter was signed by Halimah DeLaine Prado, General Counsel for Google.

In a precedential decision issued today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) vacated and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling that found all claims of a Volvo Penta patent unpatentable as obvious. The court found that the PTAB erred in its analysis of nexus between the claims and evidence of secondary considerations, as well as in its weighing of the objective indicia of nonobviousness.

U.S. patent practitioners have had a rocky relationship with the once-straightforward patent eligibility requirement under 35 U.S.C. 101 in recent years. Decisions such as Mayo and Alice upended the status quo, muddying the threshold test for patent subject matter eligibility. When dealing with difficult 101 rejections under this new status quo, it can sometimes help to think outside of the box about how to overcome a given rejection. This article presents a potential unlabeled “Step Zero” of the Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis which could help you overcome or avoid 101 rejections.

In addition to unrecoverable issues like divided infringement, it’s no secret that patents have come under increased scrutiny over the last decade. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) continues to invalidate patent claims at an alarming rate, defendants have ever-increasing invalidity and non-infringement arguments to make in district court, and the Supreme Court’s Alice decision on patent eligibility continues to baffle the entire patent community…. While the patent community debates the need for reform, an easy and attainable solution, and one that is within your control, is simply to strengthen the patents before they issue.

On August 18, the owner of the APPLE JAZZ trademark filed an opposition to Apple’s motion to amend its trademark application for the mark APPLE MUSIC with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). In its motion, the tech giant asked the TTAB to allow the company to remove “live performance services, as well as related services,” from the application. In July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) denied Apple’s request to rehear a decision that effectively canceled the tech company’s application to register the APPLE MUSIC mark.