Posts in USPTO

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.

Following a Department of Justice (DOJ) press release issued last week announcing that a patent examiner agreed to pay $500,000 to settle allegations that she worked on a number of patent applications in which she held a direct financial stake, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires on Monday issued new guidance directing patent examiners to recuse themselves in all instances where they have a financial stake in a patent applicant’s company.    

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Friday affirmed a final written decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding filed by Apple, Inc. The court’s decision upheld the patentability of several claims of a Smart Mobile Technologies LLC patent that Apple had challenged as obvious, with Circuit Judge Dyk issuing a partial dissent.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Public Affairs, on Wednesday, February 25, issued a press release announcing that a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) examiner will pay $500,000 to settle allegations that she worked “personally and substantially” on a number of patent applications “in which she held a direct financial stake.” Daxin Wu is alleged to have examined at least nine applications for companies she held stock in between January 2019 and May 2022. Specifically, the DOJ said that she reviewed applications for companies in which she held more than $300,000 and $140,000 worth of stock, respectively, and that she reviewed applications for companies that were competitors of a firm in which she owned more than $900,000 worth of stock.

Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC has managed to defend its patent at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), with a split panel on Thursday affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) decision that Tesla failed to prove Charge Fusion’s electric vehicle (EV) charger claims unpatentable. The opinion was authored by Judge Chen, who was joined by Judge Reyna, while Judge Dyk filed a dissenting opinion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday issued an order in In re Kahoot! AS, denying another petition for writ of mandamus that challenged the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director’s refusal to institute an inter partes review (IPR) petition based on “settled expectations” of the patent owner. The per curiam order was issued by Circuit Judges Taranto, Mayer, and Stark.

A battle is currently being waged in a federal court in Washington D.C., where two prominent inventors are accusing the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) of singling out and stalling their pending patent applications, which might otherwise be allowable, for extra scrutiny under ill-defined standards. The inventors allege that the USPTO has resurrected a program that started in 1994, that purportedly justified such added scrutiny, which the USPTO claims to have discontinued in 2015.

The U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday issued three orders denying mandamus petitions filed by inter partes review (IPR) petitioners at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Each of the petitioners was seeking relief from the court to compel the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to institute their IPR petitions, following decisions that denied institution of the IPRs.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I had the pleasure of speaking with Deborah Farone, founder of Farone Advisors, former Chief Marketing Officer of Cravath, Swain & Moore, and author of Breaking Ground: How Successful Women Lawyers Build Thriving Practices. Our conversation focused on how lawyers—particularly in highly technical fields like intellectual property—can build thriving practices through disciplined, strategic business development. The discussion underscores that business development is a skill, not an innate personality trait. Even introverted attorneys can succeed by taking incremental steps, practicing authentic communication, and focusing on listening rather than selling.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on February 20 affirmed two final written decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings upholding claims of Netlist, Inc.’s patent.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday affirmed in part a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding certain claims of ST Case1Tech, LLC’s (ST1’s) patent obvious, but vacated the decision as to two claims that petitioner Samsung had not challenged before the Board. The panel included Judges Reyna, Taranto and Stark and was authored by Judge Stark.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we discuss whether patent owners are better off facing post-grant challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) or the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). PTAB practitioners Matt Phillips and Kevin Greenleaf joined me for about how patent owners and challengers should be strategically thinking about the shifting post-grant environment at the USPTO. Our conversation highlights the growing reality that post-grant practice is no longer defined solely by inter partes review (IPR), but that ex parte reexamination has seen a resurgence in popularity, which requires careful evaluating timing, procedural dynamics, cost, and institutional realities. Fundamentally we attempt to answer the question of whether patent owners are better off in reexamination, or whether they are better off with IPR at the PTAB.

During a Subcommittee hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee today, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick confirmed to Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) that he does not plan to implement his proposal to charge patent holders a percentage their patents’ value. The Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee held the hearing primarily to as Lutnick questions about issues surrounding broadband deployment funding. Coons, however, took the opportunity to ask Lutnick about a proposal first reported by the Wall Street Journal in July 2025 to charge a 1%-5% patent “tax” on the value of granted U.S. patents.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I speak with Todd Walters, who is Chair of the Patent Office Litigation practice group at Buchanan. We explore the current state of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) practice and the growing tension among stakeholders as policy changes continue to reshape post-grant proceedings. We reflect on the intensity of opinion from patent owners and petitioners and discuss the high financial stakes and strategic importance of AIA proceedings.