Posts in Inventors Information

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Monday issued a precedential decision holding that the principle of forfeiture can apply even where an intervening  correction of inventorship was granted that would have directly affected the outcome of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceeding. The opinion was authored by Judge Cunningham.

In a recent Substack post discussing Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) policy and current U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reforms, former USPTO Deputy Solicitor Thomas Krause referenced my PTAB case as part of his broader argument. Because my case was cited in that discussion, the factual record matters… My case does not support the claim that the PTAB primarily exists to correct examiner errors or clean up patents issued over missed prior art.

Under today’s patent system, inventors are only allowed to procure one type of patent—the standard utility patent. Despite the amount of power in the standard utility patent, this restriction oppresses the American inventor. Large numbers of people cannot afford the costs to procure and enforce the standard utility patent, and for many of the ones who can, it often does not pack enough firepower to allow them to fully recover. Because each invention is different, each instance of infringement is different. A single $20,000-$30,000 utility patent is not even close to being capable of addressing every one of those instances. The solution is very simple—different types of patents must be created.

What does it mean to be a prolific inventor in an era of corporate retrenchment, weakened patent rights, and risk-averse innovation culture? This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I had the opportunity to explore that question with Fred Shelton—an engineer who has accumulated more than 3,000 patents over roughly two decades, primarily during his career at Johnson & Johnson. Shelton describes himself not as an IP professional, but as an engineer who “documents engineering through patents.” That distinction is more than semantic. It reflects a philosophy of invention that is structured, disciplined, and deeply contextual.

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.

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.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Deputy Director Coke Morgan Stewart joined IPWatchdog’s Founder and CEO Gene Quinn this morning to kick off the Virtual PTAB Masters Program 2026. Discussing the many procedural changes that have been implemented at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under first Stewart as Acting Director and then current Director John Squires’, Stewart urged patent owners responding to petitions at the PTAB to tell their stories and petitioners to focus on patents in need of clear “error correction.”

There are lots of familiar recommendations to make U.S. businesses more competitive globally. All are valid, but none are particularly creative or original. One solution that hasn’t been pursued is not only simple, a variation of it has been implemented by America’s largest and most aggressive economic competitor: remove the filing fees for inventors and intellectual property (IP)creators under 18.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today released two memos meant to provide additional guidance around the use of patent subject matter eligibility declarations (SMEDs) for examiners, applicants and practitioners, particularly with respect to “applied technologies” in areas like artificial intelligence and medical diagnostics. The memos do not alter existing procedures and are effective immediately.

The deadline for comments on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) issued in October, titled “Revision to Rules of Practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,” was yesterday, December 2. As of today, the Office has received 10,783 comments and has published just over 1,000 of them. The rules have been broadly welcomed by IP holders and practitioners, and broadly opposed by those who want to preserve the option to easily challenge patents. Below, we summarize several submissions from individuals and organizations on both sides.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has rescinded its AI Inventorship guidance issued in February 2024 under the previous USPTO administration and published new guidance emphasizing that the Pannu factors for joint inventorship do not apply in the context of an AI invention involving a single inventor. The guidance issued on February 13, 2024, under previous USPTO Director Kathi Vidal discussed the relevance of the three-part test articulated in Pannu v. Iolab Corp. in determining inventorship in the context of AI-assisted inventions.

Howard Lutnick has been universally criticized by industry for his reported proposal to tax patent values and revenue share with universities. Howard Lutnick is absolutely right about the problem. Here’s why. The patent system was designed for individual inventors. Thomas Edison, the Wright brothers—these were lone entrepreneurs securing temporary monopoly rights in exchange for disclosing their inventions to the public. But sometime after World War II, corporations and universities completed a quiet takeover of the patent office. Today’s patent landscape is dominated by patent oligarchs: systematic corporate R&D programs filing thousands of applications annually, not individuals pursuing personal innovation.

IPWatchdog has learned that Gilbert Hyatt intends to seek en banc review of the Federal Circuit’s prosecution laches doctrine. The issue that will be teed up for potential en banc rehearing by the Federal Circuit is: Whether the defense of “prosecution laches” may bar a claim for issuance of a patent that meets the statutory criteria for issuance under the Patent Act. Fundamentally, Hyatt is likely to ask the entire Federal Circuit to consider the continued viability of this doctrine in the wake of Petrella v. Metro-GoldwynMayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (2014), and SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, 580 U.S. 328 (2017).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Friday issued a precedential decision affirming the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) denial of a petition for rulemaking filed by US Inventor (USI) asking the Office to establish criteria to limit its authority to institute inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) under the America Invents Act (AIA).

Timing is everything in the world of American innovation. On September 16, 2025, I hand delivered a petition for rulemaking to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) seeking a simple, long-overdue fix: clarify by rule that “cancellation” of a patent claim means the end of rights prospectively, not erasure of decades of hard-earned reliance, contracts, and value. After living this process, I know firsthand how timing and retroactivity can destroy the lives and businesses of those who play by the rules.