Posts in USPTO

It was another slow week for patent filings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and a typical week in district courts, with 52 district court complaints filed and 22 new PTAB petitions. There was a new discretionary denial, a bunch of litigation-provoked high-profile PTAB challenges, and some notable new litigations. There was another Fintiv discretionary denial this week: here, a Chinese patent owner, Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd., benefited from the Board’s discretionary denial rules in a petition brought by another Chinese battery company. The case, IPR2023-00585, leaves unaddressed the questions raised about the validity of U.S. Patent 11329352.

Oral arguments were held yesterday in Vidal v. Elster, with most observers concluding that the justices are unlikely to grant trademark applicant Steve Elster’s bid to register the mark TRUMP TOO SMALL for t-shirts. Unlike the Court’s recent prominent trademark decisions in Matal v. Tam and Iancu v. Brunetti, there seemed to be little controversy on the part of the justices in Vidal v. Elster over whether the First Amendment is implicated here. Below is a roundup of comments from trademark practitioners on what they thought stood out during the oral arguments.

Gene Quinn and I have collectively been teaching patent bar prep for almost 60 years! In that time, we’ve had contact with many career-bound patent people. All had, without exception, a background in the sciences or engineering, or both. The list of qualifications has, over the years, been expanded as technology has expanded. In years gone by, degrees in Biology and Computer Science would not have qualified you to sit for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Registration Exam, but now they do, along with many other intersectional STEM qualifications, including, for the first time, advanced degrees in these disciplines. Good, I say. The more the merrier.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal issued an Order last week in a sua sponte Director Review proceeding asking the parties to Spectrum Solutions LLC v. Longhorn Vaccines & Diagnostics, LLC and any interested amici to weigh in on the appropriate sanctions remedy when a party withholds evidence in an America Invents Act (AIA) proceeding.

Late last week, more than half a dozen amicus briefs were filed in support of GM Global Technology Operations in a case that is set to potentially shake up design patent law. The latest briefs generally urged the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) to keep the law as is in order to avoid major disruptions. In June of this year, the CAFC granted a rare en banc review of its January, 2023, decision in LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations, which affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling that LKQ failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that GM’s design patent was anticipated or would have been obvious.

This week in Washington IP news, a Senate Subcommittee holds a hearing on AI’s impact on the U.S. workforce and the “TRUMP TOO SMALL” trademark case heads to argument at the Supreme Court. Elsewhere, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) holds its last Trademark Public Advisory Committee (TPAC) quarterly meeting of the year and the Brookings Institution discusses who makes the rules in an online landscape dominated by big tech firms.

On October 26, a panel majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a pair of final written decisions at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidating patent claims owned by Monterey Research and covering improved static random access memory (SRAM) cell designs. Dissenting from the majority was Circuit Judge Timothy Dyk, who believed that both the Board and CAFC panel majority erred by concluding that claim amendments made during reexamination did not differentiate the claims from asserted prior art references.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential ruling finding that it is ultimately the petitioner’s burden to clearly present arguments in an inter partes review (IPR), and that Netflix failed to do so in challenging the relevant claims of DivX’s streaming technology patents. Judge Dyk dissented from the majority.  

It was a slow week at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) with just 18 new petitions—all inter partes reviews (IPRs); in district court, a slightly below average 54 new patent filings and 48 terminations rounded out the count. District courts saw continued filings in several large campaigns. Unwired Global Systems LLC (associated with high volume plaintiff, Jeffrey Gross) adds another seven defendants to its campaign, asserting a single patent related to home area network middleware interfaces and inventor-controlled Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC filed suit against six defendants asserting patents related to, not surprisingly, digital imaging, bringing the total number of defendants to seven.

Inter partes review (IPR) is a legal process conducted before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to assess patentability based on anticipation or obviousness using prior art publications and patents. Congress established IPR to offer an efficient alternative to litigating patent disputes before the district courts. This article discusses some practice tips for both challenging and defending patents in IPRs before the PTAB.

Yesterday, Google waived its right to respond to a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court filed by the inventors of a method for protecting computers from malware. The inventors, Alfonso Cioffi and Allen Rozman (the patent is now assigned to Melanie, Megan and Morgan Rozman), are appealing a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decision that reversed a district court ruling and $20 million verdict for the inventors. The CAFC held that the Texas district court erred in ruling that four claims across the three patents were not invalid and agreed with Google’s argument that the claims were invalid under the “original patent requirement” because they contained reissue claims not disclosed in the original patent.

On October 23, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Office of the Chief Economist (OCE) published a report detailing patent application filing trends at the USPTO related to COVID-19 diagnostics technologies. The OCE found that filing activity surged following the arrival of the novel coronavirus in early 2020, with much of that increase driven by small companies and research institutions. The report found further evidence suggesting that federal funding had a significant impact on driving innovation into COVID-19 diagnostics at small R&D entities.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued two opinions today on appeals from a total of six inter partes review (IPR) decisions, affirming two of the decisions and dismissing the remaining four as moot. In the first decision, the CAFC affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) finding in IPR2018-00874 that certain claims of Team Worldwide Corporation’s U.S. Patent 7,246,394, which is directed to an inflatable product, like an air mattress, with a built-in pump, were shown to be unpatentable as obvious. Because of that affirmance, the holdings in IPR2018-00872 and IPR2018-00873, from which Intex appealed, and the holdings in IPR2018-00870 and IPR2018-00871, from which Team Worldwide also cross-appealed along with its cross-appeal of the ‘874 decision, were rendered moot.

This week in Washington IP news, a House subcommittee holds a hearing on advances in deepfake technology. Elsewhere, the Peterson Institute hosts the launch of an OECD report that looks at how governments can spur growth in the green economy, and the USPTO holds a three-day event for newcomers to the patent application process.

In Part I of this article, I recalled the early years of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, when the court was working well, and how it all went wrong. In this second half, I recount how the America Invents Act (AIA) has fundamentally shifted the power in patent enforcement and policy. I close on a positive note, detailing the current legislative efforts that, if enacted, will restore balance in the U.S. patent system, which is necessary for continued innovation leadership, economic success, and national security.