Posts in Patents

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced today that it is extending the comment period for a proposed rule published on October 17 by 15 days in response to requests from stakeholders. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Revision to Rules of Practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board” has as its stated goal “to focus inter partes review proceedings on patent claims that have not previously been challenged in litigation or where prior litigation was resolved at an early stage.” A press release issued on the NPRM said that, under current practice, “the Office is concerned that even extremely strong patents become unreliable when subject to serial or parallel challenges.”

Continuing his pro-patent owner tack so far, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires  on Wednesday designated as “informative” a Director Review decision in which he relied on the recently-designated precedential decision in Revvo Technologies, Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc. to vacate and deny institution of an inter partes review filed by Tesla, Inc.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) latest USPTO Hour focused on patent eligibility updates today, one day after Director John Squires on Tuesday designated as precedential a September 26, 2025, decision that champions eligibility for artificial intelligence (AI) inventions. The Appeals Review Panel (ARP) decision in Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567 (Decided September 26, 2025) was mentioned in Squires’ recent remarks at the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), where he told attendees that there is no need to overhaul patent law to protect AI, as proper application of existing laws is sufficient to secure patent rights for technologies of the future.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires issued a Director Review decision on Monday, which he designated as precedential, vacating a decision granting institution of an inter partes review (IPR) because the Board erred in accepting the petitioner’s inconsistent claim constructions without explanation. In Revvo Technologies, Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc., the PTAB instituted the IPR on September 15, 2025, and Director Review was initiated sua sponte in order to address the claim construction issues.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we tackle the impact of tariffs and geopolitical uncertainty on intellectual property (IP) strategy, budgets and patent portfolios.  In today’s fast-paced global economy, intellectual property (IP) teams face unprecedented challenges and opportunities. The world is witnessing a flux of geopolitical tensions, economic uncertainties, and rapid technological advancements, all of which demand agility and strategic foresight from IP professionals. Meanwhile, to complicate matters the United States is attempting to rearrange international business norms by diversifying supply chains for particularly important goods and components, while simultaneously aggressively using tariffs to change global economic behavior and settle international conflicts and wars. There is no doubt that this is a tumultuous time for all businesses, which demands attention, forethought and deliberate strategic action.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires delivered his first public remarks on Friday, addressing a number of key issues he has been focused on during his first five weeks in office. With respect to the Office’s backlog, he told attendees of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) Annual Meeting that his administration “inherited an unexamined patent application backlog that was an absolute dumpster fire.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision on Thursday, in part clarifying its precedent on the interpretation of “by others” or “by another” under pre-America Invents Act (AIA) 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (e). The opinion was authored by Judge Linn. Merck Serono appealed two decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) holding claims of Merck’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,713,947 and 8,377,903 unpatentable in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings brought by Hopewell Pharma Ventures. The Board found the claims unpatentable as obvious over a combination of two prior art references, “Bodor” and “Stelmasiak”.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced on Wednesday that it will be making it easier to develop biosimilar drugs in its ongoing effort to lower drug prices. The agency published draft guidance yesterday that recommended relaxing the requirements “to support a demonstration of biosimilarity in a biologics license application (BLA) submitted under section 351(k) of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act.”

For decades, inventors, practitioners, and researchers alike have faced the same tradeoff. Free tools surface only the most obvious references, missing decisive prior art. Professional platforms offer depth, but require significant training and demand five-figure subscriptions. The patent system promises to promote innovation by making knowledge accessible. But to fully realize this vision, patent knowledge must be available on tap to everyone who needs it, in whichever form best serves each individual user. Today’s AI technology has unlocked the possibility of universal access to professional-grade patent intelligence.

Yesterday, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires sent a memo to all administrative patent judges (APJs) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) informing them that the agency was restoring the practice of requiring petitioners before the PTAB to identify all real parties in interest (RPI) prior to institution. The change is intended to address the exploitation of PTAB proceedings by foreign state-backed actors arising as an unintended consequence of less stringent RPI standards enforced by previous administrations.

On October 24, the National Weather Service Employees Organization (NWSEO) and the Patent Office Professional Association (POPA) filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that Executive Orders Nos. 14,251 and 14,343 unlawfully threaten employees’ rights to organize and bargain collectively, not on the basis of “legitimate ‘national security’ issues,” but to retaliate against unions such as NWSEO and POPA for their efforts to represent employees. The unions are asking the court to enjoin the application and enforcement of the executive orders while the case is litigated and requested a hearing for November 13.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we tackle the impact of tariffs and geopolitical uncertainty on intellectual property (IP) strategy, budgets and patent portfolios.  In today’s fast-paced global economy, intellectual property (IP) teams face unprecedented challenges and opportunities. The world is witnessing a flux of geopolitical tensions, economic uncertainties, and rapid technological advancements, all of which demand agility and strategic foresight from IP professionals. Meanwhile, to complicate matters the United States is attempting to rearrange international business norms by diversifying supply chains for particularly important goods and components, while simultaneously aggressively using tariffs to change global economic behavior and settle international conflicts and wars. There is no doubt that this is a tumultuous time for all businesses, which demands attention, forethought and deliberate strategic action.

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.

On day one of IPWatchdog’s Life Sciences Masters 2025, panelists addressed a number of looming policy proposals that are negatively impacting the life sciences industry and urged stakeholders to get involved and speak out in order to minimize their effects. An introductory panel that included program sponsors Sherry Knowles of Knowles Intellectual Property Strategies and Robert Sahr of Wolf Greenfield, as well as Becky Kaufman of Ohio State University’s Office of Legal Affairs, discussed topics including Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick’s patent tax proposal and the administration’s threats to march in on federally-funded university patents.