Patent Prosecution & Strategic Counseling

Increased employee mobility, health challenges, and the economic downturn due to the COVID-19 pandemic may result in more inventors than usual being unavailable to sign declarations for patent applications as required by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for all applications. 

How does an important U.S. government agency modernize its operations, especially during a global health crisis? What IT modernization approach can U.S. patent and trademark practitioners expect from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)?

A design patent protects the visual ornamental characteristics of an article, including consumer and industrial products, medical devices and related tools, sports equipment, jewelry, product packaging, and even web-based and mobile graphical user interfaces and icons.

On June 16, 2020, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released final rules (the “Rules”) implementing changes to how Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) is calculated in certain circumstances in view of Supernus Pharms., Inc. v. Iancu, 913 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2019). 

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has recently launched two new initiatives to support COVID-19 innovations: 1) a COVID-19 Prioritized Examination Pilot Program, and 2) Patents 4 Partnerships that provides a searchable forum to list COVID-19 related published applications and patents available for licensing.

Last week, the US Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) released a report detailing its findings on how the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, as well as subsequent USPTO guidance on 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, has affected rates of, and variability between, office action rejections.

As more U.S. businesses employ inventors abroad, the need for foreign filing licenses increases, especially if patent rights are first sought domestically.  Obtaining foreign filing licenses may present financial and linguistic obstacles, potentially jeopardizing the priority date of your application or patent rights within the foreign country. 

In accordance with the CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act, the USPTO has extended some patent-related deadlines.

In our first blog in this multi-part series, we explored key considerations for protecting artificial intelligence (“AI”) inventions in biotech and synthetic biology. In this part 2 of the series, we will examine some key considerations and hurdles in patenting machine learning-based biotech or synthetic biology inventions.

The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently designated its decision in Ex Parte HANNUN (Appeal 2018-003323) (“HANNUN”) as being informative regarding the application of the latest 2019 revised guidance on patent-eligible subject matter. 

As noted in our previous post, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a request for comments for a list of questions regarding Artificial Intelligence (AI) Patent Issues in the Federal Register on August 21, 2019. While the comment period has closed, a few developments regarding AI patent issues have occurred that are particularly relevant.

On October 30, 2019, the Federal Circuit held that evidence of copying may be used to rebut an obviousness challenge, even if that evidence does not relate to the copying of a specific product.  (Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA, Inc.; appeal from PGR2017-00012).

Artificial Intelligence (AI) inventions have aided development in nearly every industry, but perhaps none more so than synthetic biology. For synthetic biology researchers, AI has developed into a vital tool to create cutting edge applications.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly becoming important across a diverse spectrum of technologies and businesses. As AI grows in importance in business and technology, so too grows the number of patent applications and the potential for uncertainty. Therefore, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) must continue to ensure the appropriate balance in the administration of our IP system.

The Federal Circuit in Amgen Inc. v. Coherus Biosciences Inc. affirmed a district court decision that once certain subject matter is clearly and unmistakably surrendered during prosecution, the patentee is barred from asserting an infringement claim under the doctrine of equivalents.  

On July 30, 2019, the Federal Circuit held that retroactive application of IPR (inter partes review) proceedings to pre-AIA (America Invents Act) patents is not an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment (Celgene Corp. v. Peter; appeals from IPR2015-01096, IPR2015-01102, and IPR2015-01103).

Claim construction, the process by which a court interprets the scope and meaning of a patent’s claims, is a crucial part of patent litigation. In fact, claim construction can make or break a patentee’s case for infringement and/or validity.

In July 2019 the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) newly designated four decisions as informative to highlight the PTAB’s general consensus on issues considered in these cases.  All four cases involve the PTAB applying the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s January 2019 guidance for determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  The decisions focus on whether claims integrate a judicial exception into a practical application so as to be subject matter eligible. 

The decision whether to issue a Restriction Requirement during patent prosecution lies with the patent examiner, not the patent applicant.  A Restriction Requirement can nevertheless trigger prosecution history estoppel that limits the scope of an applicant’s issued claim.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in UCB, Inc. v. Watson Laboratories Inc. helps show how this situation can happen and how applicants can help prevent an examiner’s decision from adversely affecting patent scope.

The Federal Circuit recently ruled that state sovereign immunity does not apply in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, closing another America Invents Act (AIA) loophole.  The case, Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LSI Corporation and Avago Technologies U.S. Inc. (Fed. Circ., 2018-1559), included the review of six Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) IPRs where the Regents of the University of Minnesota (UMN) filed motions to dismiss based on state sovereign immunity.