Posts in Patents

Congress is considering a bill that would let patents on prescription drugs be rendered unenforceable over an honest paperwork error, even when the underlying invention is genuinely new, non-obvious, and valuable to patients. Supporters of the Medication Affordability and Patent Integrity Act (S. 2658), which the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee reported in July, say it will lower drug prices by closing what they describe as a loophole that drugmakers use to extend their monopolies.

Artificial intelligence could help deliver the next generation of lifesaving medicines. It could also weaken the economic foundation that makes discovering those medicines possible. Both propositions deserve serious attention, and neither is mutually exclusive. Celebrating faster discovery tells only part of the story if the same technology allows competitors to appropriate the commercial opportunity created by pioneer research or obtain patent claims that obstruct the innovator’s next steps.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order list that included a denial of Google’s petition for writ of certiorari challenging the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) development of settled expectations doctrine at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This latest setback to industry-wide efforts opposing the duration of a patent’s life in force as a consideration leading to discretionary denials of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings comes a few weeks after the U.S. Solicitor General urged denial of Google’s cert petition, agreeing with the Federal Circuit that such a challenge was not available on mandamus review.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today in Google LLC v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd., affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision that found Google did not demonstrate the unpatentability of claims 1 through 23 of a patent on merging search-result lists. The court rejected arguments that the Board relied on legally insufficient evidence to corroborate an inventor’s conception testimony and that substantial evidence did not support a finding of reasonably continuous diligence.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision Friday in Linden v. ResMed, Inc., affirming a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California that dismissed a patent infringement lawsuit after finding the asserted claims ineligible under 35 U.S.C. Section 101. Craig L. Linden argued that the district court erred in treating Claim 1 as representative at each step of the eligibility analysis.

Imagine a law which costs taxpayers nothing and creates no bureaucracy, all while providing critical incentives for turning billions of dollars of previously untapped government funded research into new products, companies and jobs which help drive American competitiveness. Imagine that this law is a recognized gold standard which our rivals are adopting. Now imagine that some voices are calling for us to abandon that model even though its documented impact has hit unprecedented levels.

On the eve of the one-year anniversary of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to revise the rules of practice for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the Innovation Alliance is urging the administration to finalize the proposal. The NPRM was published on October 16, 2025, with the aim of focusing inter partes review (IPR) proceedings “on patent claims that have not previously been challenged in litigation or where prior litigation was resolved at an early stage.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday affirmed a decision for Hulu, LLC that dismissed a patent infringement suit brought by Piranha Media Distribution LLC because the asserted claims were found to be patent ineligible. The opinion was authored by Judge Cunningham. Piranha claimed that Hulu infringed its U.S. Patent Nos. 10,986,403 and 11,463,768, which relate to systems for integrating advertisements in digital media. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted Hulu’s motion to dismiss the complaint, finding that the claims were not directed to patent eligible subject matter.

Imagine building most of a great machine, and then filing a patent application on that machine because you want a return on the effort you spent building it. Years later, imagine filing a continuation-in-part (CIP) patent application after finishing the machine, and being told that in order to get the patent, you have to distinguish over your own initial disclosure. What a shame that this type of a statement has to be made to inventors. Patents are certainly needed to maintain competitive advantage, but one thing should not stand in the way of inventors who procure them—themselves.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. UPL Ltd., affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision that held all challenged claims of a fungicide combination patent unpatentable. The CAFC rejected arguments from UPL Ltd. and affirmed the PTAB’s denial of leave for Syngenta Crop Protection AG to seek sanctions.

Today, the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) issued a press release announcing a series of measures designed to create guidelines and administrative procedures for increasing transparency and efficiency surrounding the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs). The long-awaited announcement brings some relief to SEP owners concerned about the prospects of proposed SEP royalty rate proceedings and mandated disclosures, though the UK government still intends to “explore the introduction of a court-anchored” proceeding for determining fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing obligations early in patent infringement proceedings in UK courts.

There’s a curious double standard in the way we talk about intellectual property (IP) in America. When someone copies a copyrighted work without permission, we recognize that the creator has rights. Copyright infringement can even carry criminal penalties. When someone steals another person’s property, we call it theft, and criminal penalties can follow. But when a company uses someone else’s patented invention without permission, the patent owner who tries to stop it is often portrayed as the villain.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in In re Gamble affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that sustained an examiner’s rejection of multiple claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/490,077 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. Section 112(b). The CAFC concluded that Oliver Wendel Gamble, who represented himself, forfeited any substantive argument on indefiniteness before the Board and on appeal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an order Tuesday in In re Google LLC, granting a petition for a writ of mandamus and directing the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (WDTX) to transfer a patent infringement case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (NDCA). The CAFC concluded that “the decision to deny transfer here was patently erroneous.”