Posts Tagged: "Gene Quinn"

In a rapidly evolving technical and IP landscape, companies seeking protection for emerging innovations must continually monitor new developments that can pose critical threats to their portfolios and patent portfolio. Keeping a close eye on changes to pending applications from competitors, legal action on related similar patents, emerging prior art, and new publications is a critical practice for those seeking…

It is time to set the record straight. For reasons I don’t understand, many inventors are just not being truthful about the provisions of patent reform bills now pending in Congress. In fact, some in the independent inventor community are attempting to rally support to kill the overwhelmingly pro-patent, pro-innovation, patent eligibility bill now pending. This is an enormous mistake that will have tragic consequences unless those who have the most to lose become willing to accept a win, even if that win does not provide them with 100% of what they want.

Conducting thorough research of Patent Citation data can have an enormous impact on your portfolio. And with new citation data becoming available practitioners and clients can gain far more insight, for not only U.S. matters but also for matters around the world. Please join us on Tuesday, September 12, 2023, at 12 PM ET, for this informational webinar, which will…

Recently, it has come to my attention that a system that utilizes a camera to capture images and software to run facial recognition is being rejected by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as an abstract idea. Why? Well, it unfortunately seems that the reason is simply because the purpose of this very tangible, working system is to identify people and charge them a fare. Because money is overtly involved, for reasons that make no rational sense, this is being deemed a business method, despite the facial recognition technology—and even though this is a clean, streamlined approach for conducting commerce.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s Special Committee that is investigating Judge Pauline Newman for misconduct today released a number of additional documents, including a 319-page one dated July 31 recommending Newman be suspended from taking on case assignments for one year, “or at least until she ceases her misconduct and cooperates such that the Committee can complete its investigation.” The report included a number of Exhibits and a transcript of an April deposition, but notably missing is the transcript of the July 13 hearing. A statement from the Committee says it “is prepared to release that transcript, but has been waiting for proposed redactions from Judge Newman since July 27. Once Judge Newman proposes any redactions or confirms that she has none, the transcript will be released promptly.”

Scott McKeown is one of the preeminent Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) practitioners in the country, founder and author of PatentsPostGrant.com, Co-Chair of the IPWatchdog PTAB Masters program, and a good friend. Recently, Scott decided to make a change, leaving Ropes & Gray and joining Wolf Greenfield & Sacks and becoming the first partner resident in Wolf’s new Washington, DC, offices. Given the news, I took the opportunity to invite Scott to IPWatchdog headquarters for an interview.

On June 20, 2023, the Special Committee of the Judicial Council of the Federal Circuit that is investigating a complaint identified against Judge Pauline Newman issued an Order denying Judge Newman’s request to make a July 13 hearing open to the public, but said it would consider publishing a redacted transcript of the hearing that protects witnesses’ identities. However, as of today, August 1, no transcript has been made available. In a Clause 8 interview published earlier today, Judge Newman’s counsel said he is under a secrecy order with respect to discussing the hearing but hinted that the process did not allow for a mutual exchange and was rather more akin to an oral argument. So, as difficult as it is to believe, perhaps the better question is “if” the Federal Circuit’s Special Committee will release a transcript at all—ever. 

On July 7, 2023, Administrative Law Judge Cameron Elliot issued a Notice of Initial Determination in favor of computer and graphics processor maker AMD. See In the Matter of Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Digital Televisions Containing the Same (No. 337-TA-1318). This puts AMD one step closer to preventing TCL and Realtek from importing smart TVs and components containing infringing graphics processors in its patent infringement case at the International Trade Commission (ITC).

Given the economic realities, patent practitioners—both in-house and outside attorneys—are constantly being asked to do more within existing budgets. Meanwhile, more robust patent applications thick with technical detail are necessary to satisfy courts and patent offices around the world. Working within budgetary constraints without sacrificing quality requires the industry to think outside the box and use all available tools to…

With today’s accelerated pace of innovation, it is essential for organizations to leverage comprehensive IP insights to inform R&D, fuel strategic decisions, and protect their investments. At the same time, executing IP search projects in rapidly evolving domains is incredibly complex, requiring ongoing collaboration and alignment between R&D teams, attorneys, IP managers, and search professionals. Poor communication, incomplete or inaccurate…

Law firms are bombarded with pitches and promises that the latest technology will address their business challenges – yet tech alone is rarely a complete solution. By enhancing workflows and centering the balance between technology and human expertise, IP legal teams are more effectively leveraging data to provide their best work to clients. This is accomplished by adding the right…

Nearly 30% of biologics patent rejections result from a lack of adequate description. Rejections of this sort may rise in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Amgen v. Sanofi. Increasingly, building strong patent applications in this complex and litigious biologics space will require more robust specifications, with solid and well-supported claims, which means applications backed by strong IP searches…

Prioritized examination, known sometimes as “Track One,” has been in place at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for the past 12 years. The program, launched in September 2011 provides applicants with greater control over how quickly a patent application will be examined and offers a fast-track to an issued U.S. utility or plant patent that would be otherwise unattainable. For those wishing to obtain a patent quickly, prioritized examination is the answer—perhaps the only answer. Prioritized examination gives an application special status enjoyed throughout the life of the application in exchange for the payment of an additional fee due at the time of filing. This payment for special treatment as a prioritized application moves the application to the front of the examination line, regardless of whether the application is an originally filed nonprovisional patent application, a continuation application, a continuation-in-part, a divisional application or even a request for continue examination (RCE). The additional fee puts the application on fast track, guaranteeing a final decision from an examiner within one year, typically within six months or less.

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has taken center stage in popular culture thanks to the significant advances of tools like ChatGPT. Of course, the use of these new, high-powered AI tools presents real issues for businesses of all types and all sizes. Notably, Samsung employees shared confidential information with ChatGPT while using the chatbot at work. Subsequently, Samsung decided to restrict the use of generative AI tools on company-owned devices and on any device with access to internal networks. Concerned about the loss of confidential information, Apple has likewise restricted employees from using ChatGPT and other external AI tools. The actual or potential loss of confidential information is a matter of critical importance to technology companies, but it also must be of the utmost concern for all attorneys who have an ethical obligation to keep client information confidential.

One of the most intriguing, and frankly long overdue, reforms the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) needs to consider is putting an end to the practice of for-profit entities like Unified Patents and RPX filing petitions challenging a patent. This practice has recently been called into question by the USPTO through an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) published in the Federal Register. The ANPRM, among many other things, raises the question whether the Office should discretionarily deny post grant proceedings filed by for-profit, non-competitive entities that in essence seek to shield actual real-parties-in-interest (RPIs) and privies from the statutory estoppel provisions contained within the America Invents Act (AIA). And two recent decisions from the Office of Patent Legal Administration (OPLA) provide even more hope that the USPTO will take a reasonable approach going forward when it comes to RPIs.