Posts in Patents

Artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing are compressing the invention cycle itself. That compression is no longer theoretical. Discovery Loop, a new public benefit corporation founded by leading former Google and Google DeepMind researchers, has announced a mission to automate experimental loops of the scientific method; the AItonomy Foundation similarly frames automated experimental loops as a path to accelerating science and engineering. The trend is also visible in Faraday, a recent AI model for automated scientific discovery that links model-driven hypothesis generation with iterative experimentation and R&D workflows, further illustrating how AI systems are moving from passive analysis toward active participation in the scientific method.

About 20 years ago, Hotels.com had a series of commercials starring a character called “Captain Obvious.” This character would make observations that were funny because they were apparent to all. And that is what non-patent lawyers think of when it comes to something that is obvious. That is also the approach taken in a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) cases, i.e. the “Captain Obvious” approach. Specifically, the recent Nielsen (The Nielsen Co. (US), LLC, v. TVision Insights, Inc., —

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today, authored by Chief Judge Moore, first affirming a district court’s orders dismissing a patent infringement complaint without granting leave to amend and awarding attorney’s fees, and secondly, dismissing an appeal of attorney sanctions for lack of jurisdiction. VDDP, LLC sued Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleging infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 9,426,452, relating to “electrically controlled spectacles.”… The district court dismissed the case with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6), denied the motion for leave to amend as futile, denied VDDP’s motion to amend the judgment under Rule 59(e), awarded Volkswagen $207,543.60 in attorney’s fees, and sanctioned VDDP’s counsel, William Peterson Ramey III, under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, holding him and VDDP jointly and severally liable for the attorney’s fees.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in 10x Genomics, Inc. v. Parse Biosciences, Inc., affirming three Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decisions that found all challenged claims of three 10x Genomics patents unpatentable as obvious. Circuit Judge Cunningham wrote for the court, joined by Circuit Judges Taranto and Bryson, and rejected each of the four challenges that 10x Genomics raised on appeal.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I explain why I believe artificial intelligence is unlikely to eliminate experienced patent lawyers. That being said, AI is already transforming prior-art searching, claim comparison, application drafting, office-action responses, and portfolio analysis. But the strategic opportunity for competently using AI is not simply to produce more patents faster, but to reach a substantially better work product within the time and budget previously required to reach an acceptable but incomplete result. With that in mind I predict that AI will expose practitioners whose work consists primarily of commodity production.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Robert Bosch LLC, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. Westport Fuel Systems Canada Inc., affirming two Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decisions that found Robert Bosch and Mercedes-Benz USA failed to prove challenged claims of two fuel injector patents would have been obvious. The court rejected arguments that the PTAB lacked substantial evidence to find that a prior art reference disclosed a flexible membrane capable of flexing during actuation, thereby failing to meet a specific hydraulic link limitation.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision on Friday, August 14, in The Nielsen Company (US), LLC v. TVision Insights, Inc., affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision that invalidated challenged claims of a Nielsen audience measurement patent as obvious. The court rejected arguments that the Board improperly relied on a scientific publication as analogous prior art and that the publication failed to disclose the claimed resolution reducing and facial recognition steps.

Former Deputy Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Coke Morgan Stewart, has joined the Council for Innovation Promotion (C4IP) as President and CEO, effective today. Stewart most recently served first as Acting Director (January 20, 2025, through September 18, 2025) and then as Deputy Director (September 18, 2025, through July 31, 2026) of the USPTO, before announcing her departure mid-term last month. In an email sent to USPTO executive staff on July 27, Stewart informed the Office that she would be leaving the Office to return to the private sector.

For more than two centuries, the patent system has rested on a simple bargain: inventors publicly disclose their inventions in exchange for a limited monopoly. That bargain assumes disclosure primarily benefits competitors, researchers, and the public. Today, however, the audience has changed. Patent filings are now mined not only by competitors, but by governments, intelligence agencies, sovereign investors, and increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence systems capable of analyzing millions of documents simultaneously. The result is that patent databases have become one of the world’s richest sources of open-source technological intelligence.

Red Tape Index (RTI), a project of the regulatory intelligence platform Labrynth, published a patent index today placing the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) below every peer office measured on the price, speed, and openness of the patent system. The Patent Friction Index assigned the United States a composite score of -42.62, a figure that stayed negative under every alternative scoring rule tested.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a Federal Register Notice Tuesday announcing administrative updates to the General Requirements Bulletin (GRB). The GRB outlines the scientific and technical qualifications required for admission to the registration examination to practice in patent matters before the Office. The update moves one Category B degree, Biomedical Science, into Category A, broadening the pool of degrees that automatically qualify an applicant to sit for the patent bar exam.

A split U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today denied a request for rehearing or rehearing en banc of a decision issued in February of this year relating to the proper test for determining design patent infringement. In the February precedential decision, the court affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement to Armaid Company, Inc. that its massage product did not infringe Range of Motion Products LLC’s (RoM’s) design patent claims. The opinion was authored by Judge Cunningham and Chief Judge Moore delivered a dissent in which she claimed her court has caused “the legal frame of reference” in design patent law cases to become “askew.”

In the latest episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, I speak with Joel Meyer, an IP attorney and innovation strategist with more than 30 years of experience building and monetizing technology portfolios. Our conversation is about moving from patent count to patent value—and using IP strategy to preserve business optionality. That leads to a broader discussion about the role of IP counsel. A young company may not yet know whether its future lies primarily in products, services, licensing, acquisition or some combination of those paths. We discuss why the strongest IP strategies anticipate that uncertainty rather than prematurely narrowing the company’s options, and how AI can give sophisticated IP professionals better information and tools to help innovators build protection around what actually creates competitive value.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in VL Collective IP, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision that found all challenged claims of a content delivery patent owned by VL Collective IP, LLC (VideoLabs) unpatentable. The court rejected VideoLabs’ argument that the Board misconstrued a key claim term, and found that neither the claim language nor the patent specification supported the narrower reading VideoLabs proposed.