Posts Tagged: "USPTO"

Yesterday, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) held a “public listening session” to hear from industry leaders on the topic of standard essential patents. The event was specifically related to the USPTO’s effort to obtain stakeholder input on questions regarding proposed international standards that were presented in a recent Federal Register Notice, as well as strategies identified in the White House’s National Standards Strategy for Critical and Emerging Technologies.

Clarity, transparency and integrity were themes consistently referenced by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal during a lunchtime fireside chat with IPWatchdog Founder and CEO Gene Quinn on Day 3 of IPWatchdog LIVE 2023. Throughout the discussion, which ran the gamut from the agency’s current rulemaking to potential issues with emerging technologies, Director Vidal strongly encouraged public participation from stakeholders to improve the functioning of the nation’s patent and trademark-granting agency.

The general consensus of attendees at a panel held during IPWatchdog LIVE 2023, day two, is that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) will never be eliminated. Open questions remain, however, on the effectiveness of PTAB reforms recently proposed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Those rule changes, and similar legislative efforts in Congress, were the subject of “Dissecting PTAB Rulemaking & Legislation: Will it Make Things Any Better?”

On day two of IPWatchdog LIVE, J. John Lee, Chief Counsel for Intellectual Property for the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, told those who are skeptical of the chances for Senators’ Tillis and Coons’ Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) to move forward that a House version of the bill is likely to be introduced in the near future. Lee, who is principal advisor on IP issues and helms the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, was speaking on a panel titled “Politics, Policy and Legislation at the Intersection of Intellectual Property,” which also featured David Jones of the High-Tech Inventors Alliance; Joe Matal of Haynes Boone, LLP and former U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Acting Director and Acting Solicitor; and Eli Mazour of Harrity & Harrity.

If a sanctions order is the stuff of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) practitioner’s bad dreams, then the issuance of sanctions outright cancelling a client’s patent(s) qualifies as their worst nightmare. That nightmare happened to Longhorn Vaccine (“Longhorn”) in April of this year, when the PTAB canceled five  of its patents as sanctions for Longhorn’s violation of the duty of candor relating to withholding test data that the PTAB deemed relevant to the patentability of the challenged claims. A month later, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal sua sponte ordered Director Review of PTAB’s sanctions order. We now await her decision. This article examines the PTAB’s unprecedented sanctions order in the context of Director Vidal’s recent crackdown on inter partes review (IPR) abuses and provides guidance as to what practitioners can do now to avoid accusations of misconduct before the PTAB.

Amici have submitted briefs and a response has been filed in recent weeks with respect to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for review of a decision that said the USPTO was wrong to reject a trademark application for the mark TRUMP TOO SMALL. The February decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held the Office’s application of Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act to reject TRUMP TOO SMALL was unconstitutional. Specifically, the CAFC panel held that “applying section 2(c) to bar registration of [Steve] Elster’s mark unconstitutionally restricts free speech in violation of the First Amendment.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued two precedential opinions vacating and remanding decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In the first, the court said the PTAB abused its discretion in finding that Netflix, Inc. failed to articulate a field of endeavor to establish analogous art, vacating the Board’s decision in part. In the second, the CAFC vacated the PTAB’s finding that Apple, Inc. had failed to prove Corephotonics’ patent claims unpatentable as obvious, holding that the evidence supported a different claim construction than that adopted by the Board in one decision, and because the Board’s decision in the second inter partes review (IPR) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

On September 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a precedential decision on trademark functionality doctrine in PIM Brands Inc. v. Haribo of America Inc. In affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment, the Third Circuit found that PIM’s federally registered trademark to a wedge-shaped candy with green, white and red stripes should be canceled because the mark as a whole identifies the candy’s flavor.

The regulatory framework for the inter partes review (IPR) process has long been the subject of criticism from both patent owners and petitioners. There is a growing consensus that the existing rules need to be revised to address loopholes and unintended consequences that have developed over the 10 years the America Invents Act (AIA) has been in effect. To that end, both the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and Congress have proposed changes in the regulatory framework. While the two disparate approaches seek to change the IPR playing field, their purpose and approach are significantly different. This article discusses those similarities and differences.

Months after invalidating patent claims undergirding one of the largest infringement verdicts ever entered in U.S. district court, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently received a round of briefing regarding potential sanctions against petitioner Patent Quality Assurance (PQA). Once accused by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) of using the America Invents Act (AIA) process to extort money, PQA argues that its failure to respond to mandated discovery and its alleged misrepresentations regarding exclusive retainer of an expert witness should not result in an attorneys’ fees award as compensatory damages to patent owner VLSI.

In an IPWatchDog post of September 6, 2022, Anthony Prosser and I traced the history of the doctrine of “Non-Statutory Judicially Created Obviousness-Type Double Patenting” (ODP). We confirmed (as its name indicates) that no Congressional statute has ever codified this doctrine. It is ultra vires because Congress has the sole right to create patent law…. In the Cellect decision issued yesterday, the Federal Circuit stretches the word “disclaimer” in Section154(b)(2)(B) beyond credibility as justification for the ODP doctrine itself and assumes that is what Congress was talking about without actually saying it (stating with agreement that “The Board also reasoned that terminal disclaimers arise almost exclusively in situations to overcome ODP rejections, and so Congress, by addressing terminal disclaimers in §154, effectively addresses ODP”).

Pfizer, Inc. and BioNTech SE on Monday hit back at competitor COVID-19 vaccine maker Moderna with inter partes review (IPR) petitions against two Moderna patents on mRNA vaccine technology at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Pfizer/ BioNTech told the PTAB that Moderna’s patents include “unimaginably broad claims directed to a basic idea” and asked the Board to cancel all of the challenged claims of both patents.  

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today in In re Cellect holding that patent term extension (PTE) and patent term adjustment (PTA) are not the same for purposes of an obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) analysis. Specifically, the court said that “ODP for a patent that has received PTA, regardless whether or not a terminal disclaimer is required or has been filed, must be based on the expiration date of the patent after PTA has been added.” The opinion was authored by Judge Lourie.

This week in Washington IP news, as a new school year begins, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) looks at the latest research on invention education. Congress is still on vacation, yet hot topic issues are still being discussed elsewhere, including the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) looking at the state of the Chinese economy, and the American Enterprise Institute discussing what the U.S. federal government can do to patent rights during a public health emergency.

This past week, IPWatchdog was made aware of a petition for post-grant review (PGR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that raises interesting arguments about allegedly inconsistent statements on patentability made during legal proceedings by pharmaceutical firm, Gilead Sciences. Filed in early August, the PGR petition from Atea Pharmaceuticals cites 35 U.S.C. § 112 arguments previously raised by Gilead in other cases to challenge the validity of Gilead’s own patent claims that were allegedly obtained to block Atea’s competing hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatments.