Posts Tagged: "USPTO"

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced today that Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross has appointed David Gooder to be the new USPTO Commissioner for Trademarks, replacing Mary Boney Denison, who retired from the position in December 2019 after eight years with the Office. Since Boney Denison’s retirement, Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Operations Meryl Hershkowitz has been acting in the role of Commissioner. Gooder most recently served as Chief Trademark Counsel for Brown-Forman Corporation, which is among the largest American-owned spirits and wine companies. According to the USPTO press release, at Brown-Forman, “Gooder directed the company’s global intellectual property work, including managing its large trademark portfolio, rights clearance, brand protection (including anti-counterfeiting), licensing, and entertainment deals for the brands.”

For the past several years, the patent offices in the United States and Mexico have operated under a type of patent examination fast-tracking and work-sharing agreement known as a Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH). This agreement between the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) was set to expire in June of this year, and the status of the program going forward was uncertain. But on January 28, the Offices announced a new agreement that promises to improve upon the PPH system by creating an even “more streamlined approach” to obtaining a Mexican patent once a corresponding U.S. patent is granted than that presently offered under the PPH.

An IPR petition must be based “only on a ground that could be raised under [35 U.S.C. §§] 102 [anticipation] or 103 [obviousness] and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). The “printed publication” basis for IPRs seems as fundamental an issue as one can imagine. But until late December 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) offered no precedential decision explaining “[w]hat is required for a petitioner to establish that an asserted reference qualifies as [a] ‘printed publication’ at the institution stage.” The Board presented that broad question in an April 2019 order announcing it would answer that question through its Precedential Opinion Panel (POP). Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, Case IPR2018-01039, Paper 15 (PTAB Apr. 1, 2019).

There is a window open for legislative action on patent reform, and the innovator community is blowing it. Google fired its lobbyists in Washington, D.C., and then rehired all new lobbyists with an antitrust and economic background. Meanwhile, the Trump Administration has held roundtable talks about how to combat counterfeits in online marketplaces, which have been thinly veiled forums asking what, if anything, the government can do to punish Amazon for rampant counterfeits. Facebook has few friends in Washington, D.C. after the last election and its privacy issues, and its recent quarterly report shows expenses significantly up, that revenue growth slowed significantly and the CFO suggests that is likely to continue into the future. The time is right for a legislative fix for the patent eligibility crisis facing real innovators in the life sciences and software industries. There is a unique opportunity for a legislative fix for 101, with many of those who have favored a weakened patent system no longer focused on the issue the way they once were, and partners in the Senate IP Subcommittee who actually, truly understand patents, the patent system and innovation.

Much has been written about how artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are about to transform the global productivity, working patterns and lifestyles and create enormous wealth. Gartner projects that by 2021, AI augmentation will create $2.9 trillion of business value and $6.2 billion hours of worker productivity globally. McKinsey forecasts AI potentially could deliver additional economic output of around $13 trillion by 2030, boosting global GDP by about 1.2 percent a year. Companies around the globe are all racing to adopt and innovate AI and ML technologies. Indeed, by any account, much progress has been made and the adoption and innovation rates are quickening. But who is winning or leading in the race? A quick review of U.S. patent data may provide a glimpse into the state of the race.

Jamie Holcombe, Chief Information Officer at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), seemed surprised to learn on Wednesday that both the Public and Private versions of the USPTO’s Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) System have serious issues that are making workflows untenable for users.

Holcombe was participating in a public Forum on the PAIR system, where USPTO staff listened to stakeholders’ experiences since the Office implemented major security changes to the system on November 15, 2019. “The USPTO disabled the ability to look up public cases outside of a customer number using Private PAIR,” explained Shawn Lillemo, Software Product Manager at Harrity LLP, who attended the Forum. “Most patent professionals prior to the change could retrieve all the PAIR information they needed from Private PAIR. That is no longer true.”

The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition by BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. (BioDelivery) for a rehearing en banc following a refusal by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to apply the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018). See BioDelivery Scis. Int’l, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., Nos. 2019-1643, 2019-1644, 2019-1645, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 1030 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13, 2020) (Before Prost, Chief Judge, Newman, Lourie, Dyk, Moore, O’Malley, Reyna, Wallach, Taranto, Chen, and Hughes, Circuit Judges) (Opinion for the Court, Lourie, Circuit Judge) (Dissenting opinion, Newman, Circuit Judge). The petition for rehearing arrived at the Federal Circuit following a decision by the PTAB to disregard a remand order by the Federal Circuit ordering the PTAB to apply the Supreme Court’s holding in SAS Institute and decide all of the claims and grounds challenged in an inter partes review. Rather, the PTAB, on remand, withdrew all of its past actions as to the proceedings at issue and denied the petition in its entirety. BioDelivery then petitioned the Federal Circuit for a rehearing en banc, but the Federal Circuit voted to deny the rehearing, with Circuit Judge Newman offering the only dissenting opinion.

On January 23, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final written decision holding all claims (1-20) of U.S. Patent No. 9,160,713 B2 (the ‘713 patent) unpatentable. The ‘713 patent, owned by Centripetal Networks, Inc. (CN), was challenged in an inter partes review (IPR) by Cisco System, Inc. (Cisco). Of the latest eight final written decisions from the PTAB, all challenged claims were found unpatentable in seven:

Generally speaking, the first section of a patent specification will be the Background. The Manual of Patent Examination and Procedure (MPEP) recommends that the Background be broken up into two sections: (1) Field of Use Statement; and (2) Background of the Prior Art. These sections are recommended, not mandatory. Indeed, the Background itself is recommended and not mandatory. If you are going to have a Background it needs to be short, sweet, completely self-serving, must never actually describe the invention and it cannot ever use the term “prior art.” One big mistake inexperienced patent practitioners and researchers tasked with creating a first draft will make is they will go on page after page in patent applications about the history of the invention and the prior art. Indeed, there are some popular books on the market that recommend that this material be filed in patent applications. Including that type of information in an application that is filed is simply inappropriate. You do not see the best lawyers at the best law firms who represent the largest patent acquiring companies write patents like that, so why should you?

The House Small Business Committee met earlier today for a hearing titled “Enhancing Patent Diversity for America’s Innovators,” in which members of Congress heard from witnesses on ways to improve the sizeable patenting gap that exists for women, minorities and low-income individuals. As of 2016, less than 20% of U.S. patents listed one or more women as inventors, while under 8% listed a woman as the primary inventor; only six patents per million people were attributed to African American inventors; and children born to high income families are ten times more likely to obtain a patent than children from below median income families, said Committee Chairwoman, Representative Nydia Velázquez (D-NY).

U.S. patent grants grew by 15% from 2018 to 2019, with IBM heading the pack for the 27th consecutive year, according to IFI CLAIMS Patent Services’ 2019 report. There were 333,530 U.S. patents granted last year, compared with 288,832 in 2018, which represented a 3.5% decline from 20I7. IFI said the growth could possibly be attributed to examiner clarity on patent eligibility following the USPTO’s guidance on Alice, as illustrated in IPWatchdog’s article by Kate Gaudry last year.

A patent maintenance fee is an official fee that is payable at prescribed intervals to a national patent office over the lifecycle of a patent application or a granted patent, in order to keep the patent application or the granted patent in force in that particular jurisdiction. It is payable by an applicant or a patent owner (an assignee or a patentee, as the case may be). Patent maintenance fees are an integral part of the patenting process and may also be referred to as patent annuities, patent annuity fees, patent renewal fees, or patent annual fees. The failure to pay a patent maintenance fee could have serious and far-reaching consequences, including the patent application or the granted patent being treated as lapsed, withdrawn, or abandoned in that particular jurisdiction. In this article, we will delve into the patent maintenance fees in the jurisdictions in which the payment of said fees begins at the patent grant stage or patent issue stage, or are calculated from the date on which a patent is issued or granted.

In December, petitions for rehearing were filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by each party involved in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., including the United States government as intervenor in the case. The panel decision in that case, rendered on October 31 of last year, severed a tenure provision protecting administrative patent judges (APJs) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This severance was determined by the Federal Circuit to overcome a constitutional challenge brought by Arthrex that APJs were principal officers of the United States, and thus their appointments by the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, rather than the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the Senate, didn’t pass muster under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. In their petitions for rehearing, Arthrex argued that the removal of the tenure provision was an insufficient solution, Smith & Nephew contended that the fix was incorrect because APJs were already inferior officers, and the U.S. government urged rehearing so that several legal errors made by the original Federal Circuit panel could be corrected. On January 3, Federal Circuit Clerk Peter Marksteiner informed  the parties in Arthrex that they could file a single response to the petitions for rehearing. Those petitions are due by January 17 and the parties have been informed that no extensions of time for submitting responses will be granted. By the end of December, the Federal Circuit had received a pair of amicus briefs in the case, one from the Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM) and the other from the New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA).

Despite the possibility that the judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) may have been unconstitutionally appointed, as held recently by a Federal Circuit panel, it is hard to imagine the Federal Circuit (or the Supreme Court) throwing out nearly a decade of USPTO policies and PTAB jurisprudence relating to administrative patent trials under the 2011 America Invents Act (AIA). Stay tuned for a probable en banc rehearing of the Arthrex decision in 2020. That being said, a lot happened at the PTAB in 2019. Early in 2019, the PTAB designated as “precedential” an opinion in the Lectrosonics case explicitly adopting the practice called for by the Federal Circuit in the 2017 Aqua Products case of placing the responsibility on the petitioner who challenges a patent to also show that any amendments presented by the patent owner are also invalid. This was followed by proposed formal rules in October 2019 codifying the Lectrosonics holding that the petitioner who initiates a patent challenge will not only have the burden of persuading the PTAB that a patent owner’s claims as issued are invalid but will also have the same burden with regard to claim amendments during the proceeding. The USPTO should finalize this rule shortly.

On December 31, the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Commissioner for Trademarks, Mary Boney Denison, retired from her position with the agency. Denison joined the USPTO in 2011 as Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Operations and became Commissioner for Trademarks on January 1, 2015. Before joining the USPTO, she practiced law in the area of trademark prosecution and litigation, as a founding partner of Manelli Denison & Selter PLLC in Washington, D.C., from 1996 to 2011, and as a partner of Graham & James LLP for ten years. The USPTO has not yet named the next Commissioner for Trademarks. Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Operations Meryl Hershkowitz will be acting in the role until the new commissioner is named. In late December, IP Watchdog had the opportunity to interview Denison about her career and her accomplishments at the USPTO. Below, she discusses what she is most proud of, what she could have done better, and provides an update on the Office’s efforts to combat fraudulent trademark filings from China, which has proven to be a major stumbling block for the agency in recent years.