Posts in Inventors Information

Imagine a pharmaceutical researcher in 2015 searching for new drug candidates to treat a rare disease. Through traditional methods, they might screen a few thousand compounds over several months, carefully evaluating each candidate’s potential based on known chemical properties and biological mechanisms. Fast forward to 2025: using modern AI tools, that same researcher can screen millions of compounds in days, with the AI system predicting binding affinities, potential side effects, and even suggesting novel molecular structures that human chemists might never have conceived. This dramatic expansion of capabilities raises a crucial question for patent law: Has the widespread adoption of AI tools fundamentally changed what constitutes “ordinary skill” in drug discovery?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday in a per curiam decision affirmed two Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions for Microsoft, agreeing that the challenged claims of two patents directed to matching tasks to different computer processor types to improve processing efficiency were invalid for obviousness.

Three significant bills that would alter patent law were considered by U.S. legislators in 2024: the “Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership Act” (PREVAIL Act); the Realizing Engineering, Science, and Technology Opportunities by Restoring Exclusive Patent Rights Act (RESTORE Act);  and the “Patent Eligibility Restoration Act” (PERA). Each bill had bipartisan sponsors and was intended to benefit patent owners.

A hearing held today by the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property featured witnesses both for and against the recently introduced Realizing Engineering, Science, and Technology Opportunities by Restoring Exclusive (RESTORE) Patent Rights Act of 2024 trading competing statistics and anecdotes about whether or not the Supreme Court’s 2006 eBay v. MercExchange decision has actually harmed patent owners.

In 2007, I began attending sessions of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO’s) Standing Committee on Trademarks, Industrial Designs, and Geographical Indications (SCT) in Geneva, Switzerland, to discuss the development of the Design Law Treaty. I attended these yearly meetings typically on behalf of the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI), though occasionally as a representative of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA). I was consistently intrigued by the opportunity to bring harmony to international design law—an area plagued by discord and confusion, including disagreement over the very terminology used to describe the right (e.g., design patent, industrial design, design registration, design model, aesthetic model, etc.).  Fast forward 17 years, and I found myself in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, attending the final Diplomatic Conference for the Design Law Treaty.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today officially withdrew its controversial proposed rule on terminal disclaimer practice. The withdrawal was expected, with panelists at IPWatchdog’s Life Sciences Masters Program in October predicting based on USPTO Director Kathi Vidal’s comments at the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) Annual Meeting that the rule was unlikely to be finalized before her departure from the Office.  

One week after markup was postponed to give those with concerns more time to get on board, and following several previously postponed markup hearings, the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership Act (PREVAIL Act) has now moved from the Senate Judiciary Committee to the Senate floor for a full vote. The bill moved forward by a vote of 11-10.

On November 5, 2024, I received an official copy of U.S. Design Patent #D1,050,634 from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).  I received a Notice of Allowance for my U.S. Design Application #29888619, titled “Rope Throw Dog Toy” on September 18, 2024, and the patent was issued on November 5, 2024.  And on Friday, November 15, I received my official patent in the mail. This invention was inspired by my dog, Luna, who LOVES to chase balls—especially squeaky ones.

During a scheduled markup hearing of three key patent bills today, Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE) announced they would delay consideration of both the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) and the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership Act (PREVAIL Act), respectively. However, the Inventor Diversity for Economic Advancement (IDEA) Act of 2024 moved forward to the Senate floor.

Inventions are inspired by the problems and aspirations of the time they are made. They are also inspired by the fears. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, many people were terrified by the thought of being buried alive, and there was good reason for this. Although cremation and embalming existed, most people were simply washed, dressed, and buried at home. They were also buried quickly, typically within three days after death, to avoid decomposition.

As artificial intelligence (AI) technology continues to evolve at an unprecedented pace, it brings with it numerous questions regarding the application of intellectual property (IP) laws. The intersection of AI and IP raises critical considerations about the rights of creators and innovators, the interpretation and enforcement of established laws, and the potential impact on the future of creativity and innovation. As 2024 ends, and a new presidential administration prepares to develop and enact new policies, it is imperative to establish a framework of general principles that will guide policy development around AI, ensuring that the underlying goals of the IP system are upheld.

In 2006, the Supreme Court upended U.S. innovation in eBay vs. MercExchange (eBay). The eBay decision mandated a four-factor test (eBay Factors) that made injunctions nearly impossible to obtain. A working paper from Professor Kristina M.L. Acri shows that eBay reduced injunctions by 91.2% for patent owners without a product and 66.7% for patent owners with a product. eBay opened the floodgates to massive predatory infringement, destroying countless startups, especially those commercializing critical emerging technologies, and arguably contributed to enabling China to take the lead in 37 of 44 technologies critical to our economic and national security.

On the latest episode of Understanding IP Matters (UIPM), inventor Akeem Shannon discusses how to generate success and push through low times with the momentum to reach new heights. Episode 2 of Season 4 of  UIPM, features Shannon describing his path from college dropout to clinical depression and successful business owner. Shannon is the creator of Flipstik, a gravity defying cell phone attachment he invented and successfully appeared on Shark Tank with after his idea was recognized by Snoop Dogg. Shannon was featured in Inc. Magazine’s top 50 fastest growing consumer product companies of 2023. He is also a motivational speaker who has overcome bullies and mental illness to achieve success and find his way to help others.

The recently-formed Inventors Defense Alliance (IDA) sent a letter yesterday to the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure in the Administrative Office of the United States Courts urging it not to heed the call of a letter sent to the Committee last week by 124 large companies to implement a uniform process on disclosure of third-party litigation financing (TPLF) sources. The letter sent last week was organized by Lawyers for Civil Justice (LCJ) and signed by some of the world’s largest and most well-known corporations, including all of the major internet platforms, pharmaceutical and automotive companies. The letter asked the Committee to “require disclosure of TPLF agreements that provide non-parties a direct interest in the outcome of the case.”

Assignment documents recorded with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are available to the public. But recording an assignment document that contains personal or company sensitive information cannot be expunged, although there are procedures to limit the public’s ability to access to those documents.