Posts in Patents

Last week, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires issued a decision denying institution of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings petitioned by tech giant Apple to challenge patent rights owned by WeCrevention, the intellectual property holding subsidiary of Taiwanese semiconductor developer Etron Technology. Director Squires’ ruling continues the ongoing crackdown against gamesmanship at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) by petitioners pursuing positions inconsistent with district court litigation to increase their odds of invalidating competitor patent rights.

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) has materially changed how examiners are instructed to apply the law on patentable subject matter. In March 2026, CIPO replaced its November 2020 practice notice on computer-implemented inventions, medical diagnostic methods, and medical uses. The 2026 notice represents an important development for current Canadian prosecution practice.

The United States Senate Committee on Finance today held a hearing to consider the nominations of five individuals to be Commissioners of the International Trade Commission (ITC). Two of the nominees—Peter-Anthony Pappas (R) and David Foley (R)—have played key roles in IP policy on the Hill over the last several years. Introducing Pappas was Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), under whom Pappas presently serves as   Director of Intellectual Property Policy for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Tillis Chairs the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property (IP).

In an order issued earlier this week, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires granted Director Review and partially vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Final Written Decision that found several claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,828,425 unpatentable as obvious. Squires remanded the case after finding that the Board did not explain why its conclusion as to claim 2 differed from the outcome of a parallel district court proceeding on the same claim.

Recent developments in ex parte Corteva Agriscience LLC (Reexamination Control 90/019,130; Patent 10,947,555 B2) clarify obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) in the context of patent families with multiple continuations and varying patent term adjustments (PTA)…. In Corteva, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) distinguished Cellect and extended Allergan by holding that a child patent (here, the ’555 patent) is not unpatentable for ODP if it does not expire later than the original patent in the family, including any PTA awarded to the original patent. Below is a figure from Corteva.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Sansone v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, affirming the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia’s dismissal of a pro se inventor’s lawsuit and denial of his motion for summary judgment. Stanley Sansone filed U.S. Patent Application No. 16/255,511 on January 23, 2019, seeking a patent for a wearable thermal device, but a patent examiner rejected all claims. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) affirmed the rejection, after which Sansone sought continued examination.

The Supreme Court should grant certiorari in Hyatt v. Squires—a case it is scheduled to consider later this week—and finally put an end to prosecution laches in patent law. Not limit it. Not cabin it. Not send the Federal Circuit back to craft yet another multi-factor balancing test that will inevitably metastasize into a litigation weapon. The Supreme Court must end prosecution laches once and for all, period.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday issued a decision in Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., affirming summary judgment that all claims of Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s U.S. Patent 11,358,953 are invalid as anticipated. The court held that Enanta’s provisional application failed to provide adequate written description support under 35 U.S.C. Section 112 for a key chemical substituent claimed in the ‘953 patent. As a result, the patent could not claim the provisional’s earlier priority date and was anticipated by Pfizer’s prior disclosure of nirmatrelvir.

When I sat down with former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu for this week’s episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, I expected a serious conversation about the condition of the U.S. patent system. Instead of rehashing everything that has gone wrong with the U.S. patent system from the perspective of an innovator over the last two decades, what took place was a deep and revealing conversation about whether the legal architecture that once made the United States the world’s innovation leader is still fit for purpose in an economy increasingly defined by software, artificial intelligence, data, biotechnology, and other intangible assets.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on late Monday issued a notice designating as precedential a Sua Sponte Director Review Order of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision granting institution in three inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The order waived the 14-day deadline for requesting Director Review of a decision to institute trial and denied institution under Hulu, LLC v. Piranha Media Distribution, LLC, IPR2024-01252, Paper 27 (Director Apr. 17, 2025).

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied a petition for certiorari in Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation v. Unified Patents LLC, a case that asked the High Court to consider whether patent owners have a right to require Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) petitioners to identify all real parties in interest (RPIs) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The petition stems from a precedential June 2025 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decision dismissing Dolby Labs’ appeal from the PTAB for lack of an injury-in-fact to confer Article III standing. The Federal Circuit held that, although patent owners might have the right to dispute unnamed RPIs during IPR proceedings, the America Invents Act (AIA) does not give patent owners a freestanding right to identify RPIs.

Last week, economic consulting firm Cornerstone Research published a report, titled Intellectual Property Litigation: U.S. Trends in Global Perspective, detailing global diversification in patent litigation and indicating that the United States is no longer the dominant forum for patent disputes. This shift away from a U.S.-centric infringement landscape has taken place at the same time that intangible assets now represent the vast majority of corporate value with many intellectual property (IP) owners increasingly choosing trade secret protection for domestic disputes, a trend being driven by advances in artificial intelligence (AI) technology.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today in Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corporation, reversing a district court ruling that had estopped Valve Corporation from asserting two invalidity grounds at trial. The majority opinion, authored by Judge Hughes, concluded that the district court relied on insufficient evidence to estop one ground and failed to adequately account for hindsight bias in estopping the other. Judge Stark filed a concurring opinion.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) Committee held a hearing today during which they debated and ultimately advanced two bills targeting brand pharmaceutical companies. Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy (R-LA) led the hearing, urging fellow Republicans not to be fooled by what he called the “hostage taking theatrics” of Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT). Sanders, the Committee’s Ranking Member, introduced nine amendments to the “Ensuring Timely Access to Generics Act,” which was ultimately not voted on.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Boston Scientific Corp. v. Stryker Corporation, affirming the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey’s denial of a preliminary injunction that Boston Scientific Corp. and Relievant Medsystems, Inc. sought to block Stryker Corporation’s launch of its OptaBlate BVN spinal ablation device. The dispute centered on whether Stryker’s product induced infringement of claims 16 and 21 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,303,166.