Posts Tagged: "USPTO"

IPWatchdog has learned that Gilbert Hyatt intends to seek en banc review of the Federal Circuit’s prosecution laches doctrine. The issue that will be teed up for potential en banc rehearing by the Federal Circuit is: Whether the defense of “prosecution laches” may bar a claim for issuance of a patent that meets the statutory criteria for issuance under the Patent Act. Fundamentally, Hyatt is likely to ask the entire Federal Circuit to consider the continued viability of this doctrine in the wake of Petrella v. Metro-GoldwynMayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (2014), and SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, 580 U.S. 328 (2017).

For startups, patents are often the first line of defense in building a competitive moat. They signal to investors that your company is not only innovative but also strategically protecting its differentiators. But not all patents are created equal. A weak or poorly conceived filing can raise more red flags than confidence. As a former United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Examiner and now an Intellectual Property Strategist, I’ve seen both sides: portfolios that impressed investors and set startups up for long-term growth — and portfolios that did little more than drain resources. The difference comes down to strategy.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Friday issued a precedential decision affirming the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) denial of a petition for rulemaking filed by US Inventor (USI) asking the Office to establish criteria to limit its authority to institute inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) under the America Invents Act (AIA).

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a ruling in Rideshare Displays, Inc. v. Squires affirming decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that Rideshare’s patent claims to systems and methods of vehicle identification were obvious over prior art. The Federal Circuit’s decision also reversed the PTAB’s partial grant of Rideshare’s motions to amend, finding the substitute claims’ subject matter did not provide a technological solution rendering the claims patent-eligible at Step Two of the Alice/Mayo patent eligibility framework.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday issued a precedential decision in Apex Bank v. CC Serve Corp., affirming-in-part, vacating-in-part, and remanding a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) refusing registration of the marks ASPIRE BANK. The opinion, authored by Circuit Judge Hughes, with Chief Judge Moore and Circuit Judge Cunningham joining, held that the TTAB correctly found the parties’ services highly similar under the second DuPont factor but erred in applying an inconsistent and overly narrow standard when analyzing third-party marks under the sixth DuPont factor.

Timing is everything in the world of American innovation. On September 16, 2025, I hand delivered a petition for rulemaking to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) seeking a simple, long-overdue fix: clarify by rule that “cancellation” of a patent claim means the end of rights prospectively, not erasure of decades of hard-earned reliance, contracts, and value. After living this process, I know firsthand how timing and retroactivity can destroy the lives and businesses of those who play by the rules.

This is a response to Robert Grantham’s recent post titled “Patents Subjected to IPRs are the Perfect Vehicle to Assess the USPTO’s Patent Quality Problem.” This post claims to challenge my recent article titled “Fallacy Dispelled: Invalidation Rates of Adjudicated Patents Convey Nothing About Quality of All Issued Patents.” However, the post does not challenge my article, but instead falsely knocks down a strawman the post invented by mischaracterizing my article.

John Squires was officially sworn in as the 60th U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director on Tuesday, September 23, and today issued the first patents of his term, both in technology sectors that often face increased scrutiny about patent eligibility during patent prosecution and in the courts. The two issued patents were directed to distributed ledger/crypto and medical diagnostics technologies.

When Duck Hunt landed in living rooms in 1984, it brought with it one of gaming’s most iconic peripherals: the NES Zapper. But the magic behind aiming a plastic gun at a screen and hitting an 8-bit duck was more than a gimmick. It was the product of pioneering technology—the likes of which have led to a stream of patents for each new generation of game hardware.

Last week, a petition for writ of certiorari filed by patent owner Lynk Labs was docketed at the U.S. Supreme Court. Lynk Labs is challenging rulings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) regarding the scope of invalidating prior art that can be asserted in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Lynk Labs argues that the patent application supplying part of the PTAB’s obviousness determination was improperly treated as a printed publication despite remaining unpublished until after the critical date of Lynk Labs’ challenged patent claims.

As we reported he would be yesterday, John Squires today was officially confirmed by the U.S. Senate to be the next Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as part of an en bloc vote on 48 pending Trump nominees. The confirmations were made by a vote of 51-47.

On Wednesday morning, the U.S. Senate held a series of votes that teed up the confirmation vote for John Squires to serve as Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), along with 47 other Trump Administration nominees, as part of Senate Republicans’ exercise of the “nuclear option” for confirmations recently approved by Senate rulemaking. Squires will take the helm of the USPTO following months of largely patent-friendly PTAB reforms established by Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart, creating optimism that has recently been undercut by reported efforts to create fee frameworks based on patent valuation.

In the first session of IPWatchdog’s three-day 2025 Women’s IP Forum, which kicked off today, Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Coke Morgan Stewart addressed recent criticisms of her approach to running the agency thus far, as well as the future direction of the Office. At the same time, the Senate Executive Calendar today indicated that Trump nominee for USPTO Director, John Squires, may be confirmed as early as this week, as part of a block of nominees to be considered following a Senate rule approved last week invoking the so-called “nuclear option.”

This essay is a response to the recently published article by Ron Katznelson, PhD, titled “Fallacy Dispelled: Invalidation Rates of Adjudicated Patents Convey Nothing About Quality of All Issued Patents. Katznelson discloses that he wrote the Government Accountability Office (GAO) requesting correction of two recent reports because the GAO asserts that Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidation rates are a factual indicator of overall patent quality. Katznelson contends there is no relationship between PTAB patent invalidation and overall examination quality. I argue the opposite.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Monday in Motorola Mobility LLC v. Largan Precision Co., Ltd. affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that upheld claims 1-27 of Largan Precision Co., Ltd.’s U.S. Patent No. 9,696,519, which Motorola Mobility LLC had challenged via inter partes review (IPR).