Posts Tagged: "patent office"

The patents granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) tell the story of society’s innovative future. While the true value of a technological advance develops over time, the following selection of patents of 2023 represent meaningful advances in several emerging areas of technology. From artificial intelligence (AI) systems for retail checkout to improved mRNA drug delivery, these innovations have been chosen for their likeliness to make a significant real-world impact in 2024 and beyond.

On December 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision in ParkerVision, Inc. v. Vidal affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) invalidation of ParkerVision’s patent claim to down-converting electromagnetic (EM) signals in wireless communication networks. In so holding, the Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB’s use of claim construction conflicting with parallel proceedings in the Western District of Texas on the grounds that the patentee defined the term “storage element” as a lexicographer.

On December 6, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced the new membership of its public advisory boards providing oversight of the patent and trademark operations of the agency. The announcement comes about a week after the USPTO’s Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) publicly released its most recent annual report summarizing the agency’s patent operations with recommendations to end user fee diversion and publicize data from America Invents Act (AIA) trials at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

It was an overall below-average week for patent filings at both the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and district courts. The PTAB had only 15 new PTAB petitions—all inter partes reviews (IPRs), while the district court had only 24 new complaints filed. There were two more Fintiv discretionary denials this week, with the Board denying institution of two IPRs filed by IBM against inventor-controlled DigitalDoor Inc. [funding unknown] patents broadly related to various aspects of data security technologies.

An event held Monday by the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), and moderated by former U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Andrei Iancu, featured a number of high-profile political and professional figures in the intellectual property space debating approaches to strengthening the U.S. patent system, with an emphasis on national security. Representative Deborah Ross (D-NC), who serves on the U.S. House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, first joined Iancu to discuss her reasons for supporting the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act.

On December 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential ruling in the ongoing patent battle between computer chip patent owner VLSI and major chipmaker Intel Corp. While the court affirmed the infringement findings underpinning the bulk of VLSI’s $2.175 billion jury verdict awarded back in March 2021, the panel ordered a retrial of damages award for one of two asserted patents and dismissed the doctrine of equivalents infringement finding for the other patent. The Federal Circuit also found that the district court abused its discretion by denying Intel’s motion for leave to add a license defense to its case.

Recently, Wen Xie argued on IPWatchdog that the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) have reached different conclusions regarding “the creative and conceiving capabilities of machines,” which leads to intellectual property (IP) law being self-contradictory. According to Xie, the USCO presumes that artificial intelligence (AI) is creative, while the USPTO does not reach a similar conclusion regarding AI inventorship. I disagree.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced today that it is launching a pilot program to help promote semiconductor innovation by expediting examination for qualifying patents. The program is meant to support the objectives of President Biden’s Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) and Science Act, which was signed into law in August 2022. The CHIPS and Science Act provided $280 billion in federal funding to encourage the domestic production of semiconductor products in the United States as well as to fund research and development projects in advanced technological fields like quantum computing and artificial intelligence. The law also provides for a $10 billion investment into the development of regional innovation and technology hubs and establishes other programs supporting science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) educational programs.

Just before the Thanksgiving break, a number of amici submitted briefs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) asking the en banc court to rehear a case that many feel has a good chance of helping to clarify the law around the judicially-created doctrine of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting (ODP). Cellect, LLC filed its petition for rehearing en banc on November 13, asking the full court to consider whether the August panel decision should be overturned. In that decision, authored by Judge Lourie, the court held that patent term extension (PTE) and patent term adjustment (PTA) are not the same for purposes of an obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) analysis.

Here we go again! We’ve heard the story in the past, which is sadly all too common. A patent owner prevails in federal district court, and also prevails at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR) challenge, but somehow finds themselves still fighting an ex parte reexamination. How is this possible? Perhaps something will be done—this time—because the abusive, harassing challenger is Chinese company TikTok, who is seeking to invalidate the very same claims it failed to invalidate in an IPR that was denied institution on the merits.

This week in Washington IP news, the House and Senate are having a quieter week after the Thanksgiving break, but a House subcommittee delves into the critical software supply chain. Elsewhere, the USPTO celebrates Hispanic innovators, discusses fashion and IP and continues its tutorial series on Patent Center.

It was a typical week for patent filings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) with 25 new Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) petitions—all inter partes reviews (IPRs). Meanwhile, the district courts had a somewhat above average week with 76 new complaints filed.Meanwhile, the district courts had a somewhat above average week with 76 new complaints filed. At the PTAB, Hyundai filed two new IPRs against Mel Navip LLC [associated with Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC] patents; Fortinet Inc. filed two IPRs against one Lionra Technologies [associated with Magnetar Capital] patent; and Apple filed two IPRs against DoDots Licensing Solutions [Strategic Intellectual Solutions] patents.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruled in a precedential decision today that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) does not lose its statutory authority to issue a Final Written Decision when it misses the 1.5-year deadline to do so, as established by the patent statute. According to the opinion, which was authored by Judge Dyk, “[t]his appears to be the only proceeding in which the Board has failed to meet the statutory deadline, and this is accordingly a matter of first impression.”

Last weekend, The Federalist Society hosted a panel as part of its 2023 National Lawyers Convention featuring in-house counsel from Google and Qualcomm, as well as two federal judges and an academic, to discuss whether U.S. law around IP injunctions is promoting or harming markets for innovators and creators. Predictably, Google’s and Qualcomm’s counsel had starkly different perspectives on that topic.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) finding that Medtronic failed to prove the challenged claims of Teleflex’s catheter patent unpatentable. In several previous precedential decisions issued this year, the CAFC similarly upheld the PTAB’s determinations. In May, the court said that Medtronic failed to show the challenged claims of five catheter patents unpatentable because the primary prior art reference cited by Medtronic did not qualify as prior art under pre-America Invents Act (AIA) first-to-invent provisions. Judge Dyk dissented. And in June, the court found in two separate rulings issued the same day that Teleflex’s objective evidence supported a presumption of nexus, that Medtronic copied Teleflex’s product and that Teleflex’s substitute claims did not lack adequate written description.