Posts Tagged: "patents"

In this episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, I speak with Matt Johnson, Co-Chair of the PTAB Practice at Jones Day, and we take an in-depth look at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) nearly a decade and a half after its launch. Johnson and I discuss the ongoing PTAB reset at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and suggest practical fixes for a better, reengineered PTAB. The majority of the conversation is devoted to concrete, targeted reform suggestions that would lead to a better functioning PTAB and more streamlined IPR review system. Instead of abstract complaints, Johnson proposes narrowing PGR estoppel to encourage early challenges, moving IPR estoppel to the point of institution to eliminate gamesmanship, separating institution decisions from full merits adjudication to reduce confirmation bias, and rethinking quiet-title concepts to better align notice to implementers with settled expectations of patent owners.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday affirmed two final written decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, concluding that the board did not err in finding claims of two Eagle View Technologies, Inc. patents unpatentable as obvious. Eagle View Technologies, Inc. had appealed the PTAB’s decisions, which held that claims of its U.S. Patent Nos. 8,670,961 and 8,078,436 were obvious over a combination of prior art references. The patents, both titled “Aerial Roof Estimation Systems and Methods,” share a common specification and relate to systems and methods that allow estimates involving roofs on buildings to be created remotely. The patents teach remotely generating a roof estimate report by analyzing multiple aerial images of a building to determine the area, shape, and slope of the roof.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Deputy Director Coke Morgan Stewart joined IPWatchdog’s Founder and CEO Gene Quinn this morning to kick off the Virtual PTAB Masters Program 2026. Discussing the many procedural changes that have been implemented at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under first Stewart as Acting Director and then current Director John Squires’, Stewart urged patent owners responding to petitions at the PTAB to tell their stories and petitioners to focus on patents in need of clear “error correction.”

In this week’s episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, I speak with Megan Carpenter, who just recently stepped down as Dean of UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law after more than eight years. Our conversation was part personal journey and business philosophy together with a candid assessment of the IP ecosystem. We tackle emerging issues, including AI’s impact on legal practice and education. And we discuss the role of IP as essential to sustaining innovation in a rapidly evolving global economy, and fostering human creativity, innovation, and economic mobility.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Friday vacated and remanded a final written decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. The court concluded that the Board erred by requiring petitioner Guardant Health, Inc. to show a motivation to combine steps that were already disclosed in sequence in a single prior art reference.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday, January 22, issued a precedential decision affirming a district court ruling that granted Google’s motion to dismiss a patent owner’s infringement suit for failure to state a claim. The CAFC agreed with the district court that the software claims in question were directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. The opinion was authored by CAFC Chief Judge Moore and joined by Judges Hughes and Stoll.

In the latest episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, I sat down with my good friends Brad Close, who is the Executive Vice President of Transpacific IP, and Jim Carmichael, a former judge on the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences and founder of Carmichael IP. Brad, Jim and I engaged in a candid conversation that provides our unvarnished assessment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where it started historically, where it is today, and where it may finally be headed. Bottom line: the PTAB is no longer the automatic execution squad it once was, but durable patent rights will require reform well beyond the agency level.

There are lots of familiar recommendations to make U.S. businesses more competitive globally. All are valid, but none are particularly creative or original. One solution that hasn’t been pursued is not only simple, a variation of it has been implemented by America’s largest and most aggressive economic competitor: remove the filing fees for inventors and intellectual property (IP)creators under 18.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I sat down with prolific inventor Gil Hyatt, exploring his innovative journey and aspirations to leave a lasting legacy. One of the key highlights of the conversation was Gil’s creation of a non-profit Pioneering AI Foundation, which is aimed at advancing AI technology and bolstering U.S. economic interests. This non-profit organization is set to hold Gil’s substantial portfolio of AI patent applications, which cover his pioneering work dating back to the 1980s, and includes groundbreaking claims in artificial intelligence that could revolutionize sectors like education, manufacturing, and trade.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday vacated and remanded a final written decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. The court concluded that the Board erred by denying petitioner Apple Inc. an adequate opportunity to respond to a new claim construction argument raised by patent owner Smart Mobile Technologies LLC after the IPR was instituted. Apple challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,191,083, owned by Smart Mobile, which is described as a “portable and wireless enabled” network box designed to transmit and receive multiple data streams simultaneously. The technology at issue involves using a “plurality of antennas” to handle these simultaneous data streams. After instituting the IPR, the Board ultimately determined that Apple had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims of the ‘083 patent were unpatentable as obvious.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) designated another Director Review decision precedential on Monday, January 12, following Friday’s designation of four precedential decisions. Today’s decision dealt with parallel petitions on the same patents challenging the same claims under different priority dates and held that such petitions “should be rare”.

On Friday, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office designated a series of decisions on discretionary denial requests as either precedential or informative, highlighting considerations important for both inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings. In particular, precedential designations underscored the favored status of patent validity challenges through PGR petitions, and clarified important timing factors when determining whether to grant petitioner requests for joinder.

In the most recent episode of IP Innovators, host Steve Brachmann sits down with Stephanie Curcio, CEO and co-founder of NLPatent, to unpack how AI is reshaping prosecution, search, and the overall workflow across patent professions. Curcio, who began her career in traditional patent drafting and prosecution, explains how early concept-based AI search tools convinced her the profession was on the verge of a seismic shift.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruling that certain claims of Viasat Inc.’s data error correction patent are unpatentable as obvious. The opinion was authored by Judge Bryson. Western Digital Technologies, Inc. filed for inter partes review (IPR) of several claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,966,347 and the PTAB held all of the challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness. The Board ultimately found that any difference between Viasat’s claims and the key prior art reference (“Diggs”) “was a ‘semantic discrepanc[y]’ rather than a difference in substance.”