The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on Tuesday, March 19, issued a memo for all patent examiners reiterating its current practices and resources for examining means-plus-function and step-plus-function claim limitations. The memo is primarily focused on reminding examiners that they must create a clear record explaining their interpretation of such claims and points to various resources and training tools that are available to assist them.

Similar to Steve Martin and John Candy’s calamitous odyssey in the classic 1980s film Planes, Trains and Automobiles, patent practitioners are experiencing their own misadventures when filing applications in the DOCX format. As of January 17, 2024, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) mandated submitting all specification, claims and abstracts of non-provisional applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) in DOCX format or incurring a $400 surcharge (non-discounted). The DOCX mandate came after thousands, and likely tens of thousands, of practitioners, directly or indirectly, communicated their significant procedural, technical, legal, ethical, professional liability, and financial concerns to the USPTO.

Last week, the Judicial Conference of the United States issued guidance on recently announced changes to case assignment policies designed to prevent gamesmanship in litigation filed in U.S. district court. While the Conference’s guidance clarifies that the amendments are intended to impact patent lawsuits, where claims of judge-shopping have been rife, commentary from legal scholars highlights several issues with implementing these policy changes in the patent infringement context.

This episode of IP Goes Pop!® takes listeners on an intimate journey into the archives of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and their historical significance. Guided by USPTO historian Rebekah Oakes, co-hosts, Shareholders, and Intellectual Property Attorneys Michael Snyder and Joseph Gushue explore the agency’s rich history and its impact on innovation and intellectual property.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today denied Apple’s petition for a writ of mandamus asking the court to compel Judge Alan Albright of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to transfer its case to the Northern District of California. Carbyne Biometrics sued Apple for infringement of six patents via Apple’s “Secure Enclave” and Apple Cash platform features. Apple moved for transfer in July 2023, the motion was briefed in November 2023 and the district court denied the motion in December 2023 and said it would soon issue a decision. Apple filed the petition for writ of mandamus when no decision had issued by January 31, 2024 asking the CAFC to either stay the proceedings until a decision had issued or to compel transfer.

If you are on LinkedIn, you undoubtedly get messages, perhaps daily, from some service provider that you don’t know who promises to be able to help you with some pain point. Unfortunately for those marketers who do not take the time to do even basic research, these inquiries often come off as rather pathetic and do little more than demonstrate that you certainly don’t want to work with them, ever. Seriously, if they can’t even read your LinkedIn profile to see what type of work you do, are you really going to trust them with something that matters?

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, March 18, denied a petition filed by patent owner Jodi A. Schwendimann asking the Court to review a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) that affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) determination that Schwendimann’s patents were obvious. The petition specifically asked the Court to review the CAFC’s holding that Schwendimann’s argument that “justification for selection of a primary reference is a necessary step to guard against hindsight bias for the motivation to combine references” was unsupported by Federal Circuit case law.

On March 13, the European Parliament approved the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act, a major piece of legislation that lays the legal foundation of the European Union’s (EU) regulation of AI platforms. While the 459-page bill addresses some of the copyright and other intellectual property (IP) issues related to generative AI, European creator groups have called upon the EU’s parliamentary body to create more meaningful mechanisms for IP rightsholders to prevent their works from being incorporated into AI platform training models. Further, questions have been raised regarding the extraterritorial impact of reporting requirements and how they might implicate the development of copyright law in foreign jurisdictions.

Arnold & Porter is seeking an Engineering Patent Agent for the Intellectual Property practice group. This position is full-time and permanent and may be located in the following offices: Boston, Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, or Washington DC. The Patent Agent works with Patent Attorneys to secure patents by preparing, filing, and prosecuting applications involving new inventions with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) release a joint study on the IP implications of non-fungible tokens (NFTs); The New York Times Company denies “hacking” ChatGPT; and Caltech and Microsoft settle a wi-fi patent infringement case.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Friday affirmed a district court finding that two inventors should be added as co-inventors to a patent for a method of transporting gaseous fluids. The CAFC concluded that the record “does not leave us with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made” in finding the inventors contributed significantly to the invention.

Leveque Intellectual Property Law, P.C., one of America’s oldest continuously-operated patent practices founded and operated by a woman patent attorney, is seeking a registered U.S. patent attorney, preferably with a proven track record in patenting software, artificial intelligence (AI), convolutional network, medical devices, and other electrical technologies. Ideal candidates will have at least 10 years of recent experience in all aspects of utility and design patent drafting and prosecution practice; managing international patent prosecution of patent portfolios; analyzing and summarizing patent searches, drafting legal opinions, including patentability, validity, infringement and freedom-to-operate. The ideal candidate will also have recent experience providing IP clients with trademark, trade secret and copyrights guidance as well as drafting transactional and licensing agreements. This is a hybrid position with flexible hours. The ideal candidate will be available to work in our office in downtown Frederick, Maryland as needed. Full-time and part-time positions are available. 

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently released new guidance to patent examiners on making obviousness rejections. The guidance focuses on post-KSR precedential jurisprudence from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Some of the guidance is fairly mundane, some of it is not. The purpose of this article is to propose a few responses one might use to counter rejections that apply certain problematic aspects of the new guidance.

The key to rainmaking for lawyers is understanding that those who have decisional authority to hire an attorney are hiring you. Perhaps, once upon a time, those who hired lawyers were more interested in the name of the firm, but the days of an attorney staying with a firm long term are over. Attorneys move, firms merge or sometimes collapse. What this means is that, as long as the firm you are with is large enough to do the work you seek, your name and reputation far and away supersede the name on the letterhead.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today issued a Request for Comments (RFC) that will be published in the Federal Register tomorrow seeking input from the public on how to better incentivize commercialization of innovation, particularly in green and critical or emerging technologies. According to the RFC, the comments received “will be used to evaluate possibilities for amplifying the impact of our current work, and to explore new ways to support the transfer of innovation to the marketplace.”