Posts Tagged: "patent prosecution"

Gene Quinn and I have collectively been teaching patent bar prep for almost 60 years! In that time, we’ve had contact with many career-bound patent people. All had, without exception, a background in the sciences or engineering, or both. The list of qualifications has, over the years, been expanded as technology has expanded. In years gone by, degrees in Biology and Computer Science would not have qualified you to sit for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Registration Exam, but now they do, along with many other intersectional STEM qualifications, including, for the first time, advanced degrees in these disciplines. Good, I say. The more the merrier.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential decision holding that a Delaware district court erred in its claim construction of a term with respect to Malvern Panalytical, Inc.’s patents. Specifically, the CAFC said the district court erred by relying heavily on the patent prosecution history statements for a related patent that had been cited in the information disclosure statement (IDS) during supplemental examination of one of the patents-in-suit to inform its construction of the term in question.

Startups often face many competing pressures. Two such pressures that are frequently at odds with each other are the need to adequately protect the intellectual property that will be the basis for future revenue and investment, and the need to bring such revenue and investment into the business to allow for continued technology development and commercialization. Many startups are aware of how the on-sale bar interacts with these pressures and the associated need to file patent applications on any technology prior to offering or placing it on sale. However, fewer startups are aware of the public-use bar and how activities pursued with the goal of growing their businesses may unwittingly invoke it.

On October 23, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Office of the Chief Economist (OCE) published a report detailing patent application filing trends at the USPTO related to COVID-19 diagnostics technologies. The OCE found that filing activity surged following the arrival of the novel coronavirus in early 2020, with much of that increase driven by small companies and research institutions. The report found further evidence suggesting that federal funding had a significant impact on driving innovation into COVID-19 diagnostics at small R&D entities.

On October 10, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order list showing it had denied the petition for writ of certiorari filed in Personalized Media Communication, LLC v. Apple Inc. In denying the appeal, SCOTUS leaves in place a divided Federal Circuit ruling that improperly expanded prosecution laches doctrine according to Personalized Media (PMC). The cert denial also passes on the question of whether prosecution laches remains a valid defense to patent infringement in light of the Supreme Court’s 2017 ruling in SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products.

HIP, Inc. recently filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Justices to review a May 2023 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decision holding an inventor’s contribution to a patent for methods of pre-cooking bacon and meat pieces did not satisfy the joint inventorship test because the contribution was “insignificant in quality.”

Given current and ongoing economic realities, patent practitioners—both in-house and outside counsel—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 outside the box thinking and use of available tools to streamline as much of the process as possible. Enter Artificial Intelligence (AI), which is taking the world by storm, and recently garnered the attention of the American Bar Association, which has just announced the creation of a task force that will examine the impact of AI on law practice and the ethical implications of its use for lawyers.

U.S. patent practitioners have had a rocky relationship with the once-straightforward patent eligibility requirement under 35 U.S.C. 101 in recent years. Decisions such as Mayo and Alice upended the status quo, muddying the threshold test for patent subject matter eligibility. When dealing with difficult 101 rejections under this new status quo, it can sometimes help to think outside of the box about how to overcome a given rejection. This article presents a potential unlabeled “Step Zero” of the Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis which could help you overcome or avoid 101 rejections.

In addition to unrecoverable issues like divided infringement, it’s no secret that patents have come under increased scrutiny over the last decade. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) continues to invalidate patent claims at an alarming rate, defendants have ever-increasing invalidity and non-infringement arguments to make in district court, and the Supreme Court’s Alice decision on patent eligibility continues to baffle the entire patent community…. While the patent community debates the need for reform, an easy and attainable solution, and one that is within your control, is simply to strengthen the patents before they issue.

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 July 25, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (CFC) issued a ruling in Pulnikova v. U.S. dismissing monetary damages claims for alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by patent examiners and officials at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Although the CFC expressed its sympathy for the inventor’s frustrations, including the pro se filing of “appeal-books” containing thousands of pages responding to office actions, the court added that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to award the type of damages sought.

The European Patent Office (EPO) today launched a dashboard on Unitary Patents, which will be updated daily and breaks down data on requests for Unitary Patents by technology field, country of origin, language of translation, proprietors’ profile and status of registration. According to an EPO press release, there have been 670 requests filed on average per week since the Unitary Patent went into effect on June 1, “demonstrating high interest in the new system.” 

IPWatchdog held its first annual Patent Prosecution and Portfolio Management Masters Program Tuesday, June 20, to Wednesday, June 21, covering cutting-edge developments that impact the ability to get enforceable patent applications through the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), such as the recent ruling in Amgen v. Sanofi, the implications of artificial intelligence (AI) for patenting, and ethics pitfalls practitioners may face as a result of AI use. The program also featured the latest inductions into the IPWatchdog Masters Hall of Fame; IPWatchdog Founder and CEO Gene Quinn presented Bob Stoll, former USPTO Commissioner for Patents and currently Partner and Co-Chair of the IP Group at Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath, with an award, and also recognized the late Q. Todd Dickinson, who served as USPTO Director from 1999 to 2001.

Recovering money from users of technology requires movement on the part of inventors of technology. For example, receiving compensation from those who use patented designs without permission often requires patent owners (e.g., inventors) to send cease and desist letters, file complaints in federal district court, and at times endure patent litigation to its completion. All of these movements require the inventor to possess a patent. In this manner, one way to view the patent is as a vehicle in commerce.

The impact of the long-awaited launch of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) is hard to overstate. While litigators and patent portfolio managers are immediately feeling the impact in Europe, surprisingly, they should also expect an impact on information disclosure statement (IDS) strategy for U.S. patent applications. To understand the impact, this article provides a background on how the European Patent Office (EPO) and UPC consider earlier national rights, how patent applicants can address earlier national rights to prevent invalidation at the UPC, how earlier national rights identified in a European patent application can affect a U.S. application and should be addressed in an IDS, and how this information can be used for monetization and litigation.