Posts Tagged: "USPTO"

After last week’s spike in complaints, things returned to steady-state this week, with plaintiffs filing 58 complaints and patent challengers filings 26 petitions (one post grant review [PGR] and 25 inter partes reviews [IPRs]). There were four denials under Fintiv at the Board, all related to upcoming trial dates and a stipulation the Board found fault with in Cisco Systems v. Estech. A surprising number of challenges against semiconductor-related patents being asserted by NPEs (most with litigation funding backing, such as by Starboard Value, Vector Capital, and Cambridge Partners) were instituted this week, perennial filers K.Mizra and Blue Spike had new complaints, Coinbase filed a declaratory judgment against frequent filer and NPE Modern Font Applications, and there were a number of pharmaceutical litigations initiated that bear scrutiny.

It was a busy week for patent filings in the district courts, with 113 complaints filed, fueled particularly by nearly 50 (!) IP Edge complaints, primarily filed in the Western District of Texas’s Waco Division; the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), on the other hand, was slightly down, with 29—the bulk coming from Intel counterpunching with seven challenges against AQUIS-asserted patents. 

In March of this year, a bipartisan group of senators asked Drew Hirshfeld, who is Performing the functions and duties of the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), to “publish a request for information on the current state of patent eligibility jurisprudence in the United States, evaluate the responses,” and provide the senators with a detailed summary of the findings in order to assist them as they consider appropriate legislative action. The letter gave a deadline of March 5, 2022 to submit a report on the topic. Now, a Federal Register Notice (FRN) scheduled to be published July 9 is requesting answers and input from stakeholders to 13 questions/topics to assist in that effort, according to a publicly posted draft of the FRN.

Gilbert Hyatt filed hundreds of patent applications across fields such as machine control, audio and image processing, and computer technology. While many such applicants can similarly claim to have filed at least so many applications in these areas, Hyatt is perhaps somewhat unique in that: (1) he is a pro-se inventor; (2) he filed the vast majority of the applications shortly before the 1995 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) transition date when patent terms transitioned from 17 years from issuance to 20 years from filing; and (3) his applications are long with complex and extended priority chains. Hyatt has been characterized by some (e.g., Judge TS Ellis) as a “prolific inventor”. For others, Hyatt brings “submarine patents” to mind.

In a recent Supreme Court decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, the Court held that the unreviewable authority wielded by Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) at the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) exercises authority of a “principal officer” and is incompatible with their appointment by the Secretary of Commerce to an “inferior office.” Instead of declaring their appointment unconstitutional, the Court’s remedial ruling was aimed at making PTAB judges “inferior officers.” It did so by a ruling interpreting 35 U.S.C. § 6(c) as enabling the USPTO Director to “review decisions rendered by APJs,” subordinating them to the Director’s full supervision.

As the United States today celebrates the 245th anniversary of its independence, the intellectual property (IP) community will tomorrow be celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Lanham Act, which was signed into law by President Harry S. Truman on July 5, 1946. The Lanham Act was introduced by Fritz Garland Lanham, who was born in Weatherford, Texas in 1880. He was elected to Congress in 1919 and reelected 13 times before he retired in 1947, the year the Lanham Act was enacted. Lanham’s father was a lawyer and served as a Congressman as well as the 23rd governor of Texas.

This week, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced that it would be implementing an interim rule at the agency in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s late June decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew. Today, the Office held a Boardside Chat with Drew Hirshfeld, Performing the Functions and Duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO; Scott R. Boalick, Chief Administrative Patent Judge; Jacqueline W. Bonilla, Deputy Chief Administrative Patent Judge; and Scott C. Weidenfeller, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge to explain how the interim process will work and answer questions submitted by the public. Janet Gongola, Vice Chief Judge for Engagement at the PTAB, moderated the panel.

The U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property recently held hearings on the topic of Protecting Real Innovations by Improving Patent Quality. The Subcommittee is to be commended for seeking practical solutions to improve patent quality. To this end, the author respectfully recommends that the Subcommittee and the intellectual property (IP) community take a close look at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)’s revised Performance and Appraisal Plan (PAP) for patent examiners.

During the Senate Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property hearing, titled Protecting Real Innovations by Improving Patent Quality, held on June 22,  Jorge Contreras, Presidential Scholar and Professor of Law at the S.J. Quinney College of Law of the University of Utah, testified under oath that patents are effectively the same thing as products, and seemed to suggest that executive fraud unrelated to patents must make the patents fraudulent too. This, of course, is a fallacy. It shows a fundamental and deep misunderstanding of what patents are and how they work, and completely misrepresents law and logic. If taken seriously, Contreras’ testimony would destroy the value of virtually every patent portfolio and further chill investment in new technologies. It is an alarming position coming from a patent lawyer and credentialed law school professor who claims he is “intimately familiar with the topic of today’s hearings.”

On June 23, a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) blog post published a piece authored by Commissioner for Trademarks David Gooder discussing a massive surge in trademark application filings at the agency this year. Through June 17, the USPTO had received 63% more trademark applications (211,000 additional filings) when compared to the same period in 2020. Spurred on by the growth of the internet economy during the COVID-19 pandemic, the surge has created a backlog of trademark applications that has extended the wait times for first office actions to an average of 5.2 months and final disposals of applications to an average of 10.5 months.

How much detail is needed in a patent application for a software-based invention? Software patents present some unique challenges that many other kinds of patent applications do not need to contend with, one of them being the level of disclosure and care in drafting needed to avoid indefiniteness issues. While source code is not required in most cases, a growing body of case law indicates that insufficient detail about the algorithms underpinning the invention could render the patent claims indefinite, meaning that the scope of the claimed invention is too ambiguous. If the patent examiner deems the disclosure to be inadequate during examination, indefiniteness could prevent a patent from issuing. In the case of an already-issued patent, indefiniteness could render the claims unenforceable.

In the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s ) patent academy (or today’s version of such), patent examiners are taught that the objective of the patent examiner is to “issue valid patents promptly.” In pursuing this institutional interest, each examiner conducts examinations that they independently manage. Although patent prosecutors cannot control an examiner’s decisions, they can establish a context that encourages a favorable outcome. If first and second application drafters each drafted applications to cover the same invention (that met all of the requirements of 35 USC 112) the presentation of the content in the respective applications could engender drastically different examination processes. This is because there is a relationship between the manner in which the content of a patent application is presented and the character of the examination process that follows.

It was a pretty normal week patent filings-wise, with 65 district court complaints and 38 Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) petitions filed, all inter partes reviews (IPRs). “Frozen Assets Asserted”: I’ve heard of castles built on sand and castles built in the sky, but this patent is about those built of ice—and the apparent cutthroat nature of the niche but seemingly quite profitable business. Ice Castles, LLC, according to them, is a Utah-based “awe-inspiring, must-see winter phenomenon built with hundreds of thousands of icicles that brings fairy tales to life.” Per them, founder Brent Christensen began experimenting with ice buildings as a hobby in the winter of 2009, and the following year, made one for a local resort; he patented his method of making these ice structures, which was granted in 2013. His business flourished, as he started both making ice castles, selling tickets, and leasing and managing other destination locations in other states, including New Hampshire. Well, this week they sued Harbor Enterprises Marketing & Productions, Lester Spear, and Cameron Clan Snack Co. LCC on U.S. Patent 8,511,042, claiming the Maine-based company had constructed an infringing ice castle in Maine in 2021, and charged an admission fee, including multiple photos of the Maine location in their complaint.

A working definition of inertia is the tendency of a body to maintain its state of rest or uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force. As it did in Oil States (S.C. 2018), inertia appears to have played a role in the Supreme Court’s decision in the United States v. Arthrex, in which the central dispute was the remedy to address the unconstitutional appointment of administrative patent judges (APJs). Possible remedies included vacating hundreds or thousands of prior final decisions by unconstitutionally appointed APJs, requiring all APJs to be confirmed by the Senate and then rehear previously-decided reviews, finding the entire statutory structure unconstitutional and handing invalidity/unpatentability determinations back to Article III Courts, removing employment protections for APJs (as the Federal Circuit did), or adding a layer of review so that inferior officers had appropriate responsibility under the Appointments Clause. Faced with these possibilities, the Supreme Court’s holding maintains the inertia of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and again solidifies its role in patent litigation today.

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property on Tuesday heard from four witnesses on the topic of “Protecting Real Innovations by Improving Patent Quality.” The topic has been addressed by the Senate IP Subcommittee before, and long-debated in patent circles generally. Under the leadership of its new Chairman, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the Subcommittee now seems to be revisiting the conversation and looking for practical fixes.