The Situation: Concerns that uncertain and unpredictable patent subject matter eligibility jurisprudence thwarts U.S. economic and technological advancements are especially acute in the fast advancing AI space. Stakeholders...more
The PTAB recently updated its Standard Operating Procedure 1 (SOP), which describes the process and guidelines for assigning judges to panels in all jurisdictions of the Board. This blog post highlights some of the key...more
Following similar decisions in other countries, a Japanese court held for the first time on May 16, 2024, that an inventor in the Patent Act is limited to a natural person and does not include an artificial intelligence...more
On April 19, 2024, the USPTO issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (the “Notice”) regarding discretionary denial in post-grant proceedings and other issues. The Notice addresses stakeholder feedback responsive to the...more
5/3/2024
/ Comment Period ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patents ,
Petition for Review ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Proposed Rules ,
Regulatory Agenda ,
Regulatory Reform ,
USPTO
The USPTO's April 11, 2024, guidance clarifies how existing USPTO rules apply to the use of AI by practitioners when interacting with the USPTO....more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in Videndum Production Solutions, Inc. v. Rotolight Limited (IPR2023-01219), recently denied a petition for inter partes review (IPR) of a patent on a lighting system and control for...more
Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed one and vacated another Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) final written decision in which the PTAB determined that Weber Inc. (“Weber”) failed to...more
The Background: In response to the Biden administration's "Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence" on October 30, 2023, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office...more
2/19/2024
/ Artificial Intelligence ,
Biden Administration ,
Executive Orders ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inventions ,
Inventors ,
Joint Inventors ,
New Guidance ,
Patent Act ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Popular ,
Public Comment ,
USPTO
USPTO Director Katherine K. Vidal issued guidance on February 6, 2024 regarding the use of AI in drafting materials submitted to the USPTO’s administrative boards, including the PTAB. Of biggest concern in the guidance is...more
On November 16, 2023, USPTO Director Kathi Vidal ordered a Delegated Rehearing Panel (“DRP”) to review whether the PTAB misapprehended or overlooked certain issues when denying challenger SynAffix B.V.’s petition for inter...more
The Federal Circuit in Sisvel International S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Sept. 1, 2023) (Prost, Reyna, and Stark) affirmed a PTAB decision finding anticipated and/or obvious certain claims of two patents directed...more
10/31/2023
/ Claim Construction ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Litigation Strategies ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Owner Preliminary Response ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Standard of Review ,
Trial Practice Guidance
In an effort to shed light on the practice of filing multiple petitions under the America Invents Act (AIA) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently released...more
The Situation: The U.S. Supreme Court recently denied certiorari in Thaler v. Vidal, leaving intact the Federal Circuit's ruling that only human beings, and not artificial intelligence ("AI") systems, can be inventors under...more
6/23/2023
/ Algorithms ,
Artificial Intelligence ,
Denial of Certiorari ,
Intellectual Property Owner’s Association (IPO) ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inventors ,
Machine Learning ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
USPTO
In DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH et al v. QinetiQ Limited (PGR2023-00003), the petitioner filed its petition on the last possible day in the 9-month statutory period to timely file a petition for post-grant review (PGR). The...more
In Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624, Paper 9 (Aug. 24, 2022) the PTAB denied institution of an Inter Partes Review under 35 USC § 314. This denial was based on several factors including the declaration of the...more
The PTAB in a recent PGR proceeding: SWM International, LLC et al v. DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH (PGR2021-00097), reiterated the requirements for additional discovery. In particular, in this matter, the petitioner, having...more
In Zynga Inc. v. IGT, IPR2022-00199, the USPTO Director, Kathi Vidal, sua sponte granted review and affirmed the decision instituting trial over patent owner’s argument that the Board erred in its application of interference...more
In Salesforce.com, Inc. v. WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development, the Board denied institution of inter partes review of a patent directed to providing content to a limited display terminal (e.g., a...more
On August 5, 2022, in Thader v. Vidal, the Federal Circuit affirmed that patent inventors must be natural persons, rejecting a technologist's attempt to name an artificial intelligence as the sole inventor on patent...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently reversed obviousness rejections based on an Applicant demonstrating commercial success of an infant spoon, in Ex Parte Doug Gonterman and Jessica Lineberry. The PTAB found...more
6/21/2022
/ Commercial Success ,
Ex Parte ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Inventions ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Retail Market
The Federal Circuit, in Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regul. Guards, Inc., 21-1759, in an opinion by Judge STOLL, dismissed Atlanta Gas’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In this case, Atlanta Gas filed an IPR which was...more
On February 28, 2022, in American Well Corporation v. Teladoc Health, Inc. IPR2021-00748, the PTAB denied a motion to submit supplemental information. In this matter, the Board instituted a trial of all claims and all...more
On December 14, 2021, the PTAB instituted Post-Grant Review (PGR) for certain claims of U.S. Pat. No. 10,855,671 (the ‘671 Patent) in Netskope, Inc. v. Bitglass, Inc., PGR2021-00091 while, on the same date, denying...more
The Federal Circuit in AMC Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Fall Line Patents (Fed. Circ. September 30, 2021, op. 21-1051) held that the PTAB partially abused its discretion when upholding one claim of U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 for...more
In Unified Patents, LLC f/k/a Unified Patents Inc. v. Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (IPR2021-00827), the PTAB denied a patent owner’s request to file a motion for additional discovery into any real...more