Wen Xie Image

Wen Xie

Partner

Global IP Counselors

Wen Xie is a U.S. Patent Attorney and Partner with Global IP Counselors. She is a prosecutor with a comprehensive understanding of the patent process in the United States, Europe, and across Asia, and experience overseeing the prosecution of applications around the world. Wen is familiar with actions and procedures from all the major national patent offices, including the US Patent and Trademark Office, the European Patent Office and the China National Intellectual Property Administration. Wen has written over a hundred original patent applications, and has extensive experience with appeals before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. She represents clients across various technological sectors including the electro-mechanical, medical devices, and computer-operated control technologies.

Wen is highly sought after for her opinion on subject matter eligibility in the United States, particularly with respect to the patentability of software applications and computer-implemented technologies. She has published legal scholarship and speaks frequently on subject matter eligibility under the Alice and Mayo framework.

Highly involved in the innovation community around the world, Wen is a member of the Forbes Business Council and the WINGS WorldQuest Junior Council. Wen is also a leader in the Intellectual Property Owner’s Association, chairing the subcommittee in charge of the Diversity in Innovation Toolkit and working with leaders across the IP arena so that diverse inventors can be thoroughly recognized for their contribution to the innovative ecosphere.

 

Recent Articles by Wen Xie

SCOTUS Sustains Blow to Patent Prosecution Practice in Denying Juno v. Kite Rehearing

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Juno v. Kite undermines effective prosecution practice and ultimately patent enforcement. The Juno panel held that to satisfy the written description requirement, a patent needs to demonstrate to a skilled artisan that the inventors possessed and disclosed in their filing the full scope of every genus being claimed. By denying rehearing to the Federal Circuit’s 2021 decision on the scope of the written description requirement, Juno v. Kite demonstrates how once again, the courts never consider anything from a prosecutor’s point of view. Here’s why Juno v. Kite is bad for patent prosecution practice.

How U.S. Attorneys Should Tackle Extended European Search Reports

Why should U.S. attorneys bother with learning European Patent (EP) practice? Because every once in a while, your client is going to ask you about IP portfolio management in other countries, whether you have a client that is already a multinational entity or thinking about expanding across borders. It’s not uncommon for a client to ask you about practicing before the European Patent Office (EPO) versus, for example, one of the Asian or Latin American patent offices, in which case they will more likely talk directly to a foreign associate. The reason for this is because of English. You speak it. They also speak it. So, your client could very well ask you to review documents coming out of Europe to save money (if they have not already). Because of this, it’s important to know some of the basics of European prosecution practice. In this episode, let’s talk about Extended European search reports (EESRs), which basically means an EP office action.

What Unauthorized Manipulation of Starlink Signals Teaches Us About the Importance of IP

Starlink signals can be manipulated. In fact, they already have been, by unauthorized third parties. The agents are proclaiming their success and letting the world know that there is nothing Starlink can do about it. I’m inclined to agree. A professor at the University of Texas has found a way to use Starlink signals to develop a new global navigation technology that would operate independently of GPS or its European, Russian, and Chinese equivalents (Starlink’s terminals have also been successfully hacked, but that’s a different issue. This article deals with the unauthorized usage and alteration of the Starlink signals).

IP Practice Vlogs: Lessons in Calculating Patent Term

After June 8, 1995, U.S. utility patent terms changed from 17 years from issuance to 20 years from filing to harmonize with the rest of the world under the Uruguay Rounds Agreement Act. For design patents, after the Hague Agreement on May 13, 2015, design patent terms changed to from 14 years from issuance to 15 years from the date of grant/issuance. In the United States, patent term is subject to the following: patent term adjustment (PTAs), patent term extension (PTEs) and terminal disclaimers. While many other countries also have PTAs and PTEs, terminal disclaimer practice exists only in the United States because we are the only country that issues judicially-created, non-statutory double patenting rejections.

IP Practice Vlogs: Responding to the USPTO’s Request for Public Comments

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) would like public comments on how to update the 2019 Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. The agency is also seeking comments on how to improve the robustness of the patent system overall. This article/video is in (unofficial) response to both of these requests for comments. The current mess surrounding subject matter eligibility in the United States is an offspring of a much deeper problem in patent law, which is that there is practically no standardization in patent practice. In medicine, U.S. doctors are trained by standardized practices through rotations and residency programs such that when they begin practicing, a doctor graduating in Florida will not practice medicine vastly different from a doctor graduating from medical school in California, for instance. Instead, the idea is that all the graduates will approach medical treatment in a standardized way so that the public has a lot more faith in the medical community.

The Copyright Claims Board: A Venue for Pursuing Actual or Statutory Damages Impacting Both Registered and Unregistered Works

The Copyright Claims Board (CCB), established by the CASE Act passed in December 2020, is now up and running and taking cases. The CCB is an alternative to federal court. Just like patents, copyrights are bound by federal law. Previously, a copyright owner would have to take their case to federal district court to in order to seek damages or relief. But the CCB allows a claimant to bring a copyright suit before a tribunal at the Copyright Office instead.

IP Practice Vlogs: Understanding and Responding to Examiner Rationales for Prima Facie Obviousness

Did you know that the examiner bears the initial burden of proving a prima facie case of obviousness? You, the applicant, do not have any duty or burden to prove nonobviousness. Therefore, initially, the applicant has no obligation to present any secondary evidence of nonobviousness. It is only when the examiner has proven a prima facie case of obviousness that the burden shifts to the applicant.

The Case for Patenting AI: U.S. Patent Laws Better Get Smart or Get Left Behind

The idea of patented inventions brings to mind machines fully realized – flying contraptions and engines with gears and pistons operating in coherent symphony. When it comes to artificial intelligence (AI), there are no contraptions, no gears, no pistons, and in a lot of cases, no machines. AI inventors sound much more like philosophers theorizing about machines, rather than mechanics describing a machine. They use phrases like “predictive model” and “complexity module” that evoke little to no imagery or association with practical life whatsoever. The AI inventor’s ways are antithetical to the principles of patent writing, where inventions are described in terms of what does what, why, how, and how often.

Upcoming Events with Wen Xie

Patent Prosecution Masters™ 2023

June 20 @ 8:00 am - June 21 @ 5:00 pm EDT

Past Events with Wen Xie

Artificial Intelligence Masters™ 2023

March 7 @ 8:00 am - March 8 @ 1:00 pm EST

IPWatchdog Virtual International IP Masters™ 2022

March 7, 2022 @ 8:30 am - March 10, 2022 @ 12:30 pm EST