Skip to main content

Intellectual Property

Viewpoints

Filter by:

The USPTO has published its notice of proposed rulemaking for the FY 2017 patent fee schedule in the Federal Register. The USPTO proposes fee increases to recover its estimated costs for patent operations and achieve its strategic goals of optimizing patent quality and timeliness and increasing international efforts to improve IP policy, protection, and enforcement.
The plot just thickened in the long-running debate over where patent cases should be litigated.
The Federal Circuit has again addressed which types of patents are eligible for Covered Business Method (“CBM”) review before the Patent Trial & Appeals Board.
On October 28, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register proposing revisions to the materiality standard for the duty to disclose information in patent applications and reexamination proceedings in light of Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc).
The America Invents Act (“AIA”) mandates that a Covered Business Method Review is available only for challenging the validity of covered business method patents.
On November 15, 2016, a split panel of the Federal Circuit, consisting of Judges Moore and O’Malley, ruled that the antedating standard demanded by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, requiring a “continuous exercise of reasonable diligence,” was too exacting and in conflict with Federal Circuit precedent.
Earlier this week, Intellectual Ventures (IV) petitioned the full Federal Circuit to review the panel opinion in Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, which invalidated two of its patents under section 101.  Both patents—the ’050 and the ’610—are directed to filtering email or file content.
Trade secret theft is a growing threat to American businesses. One obstacle to addressing misappropriation through a lawsuit can be a lack of direct evidence of theft.
An important question for any plaintiff alleging trade secret misappropriation is: “How much detail should I provide about the stolen trade secrets in the complaint?” Answering this question often requires the balancing of two important considerations.
The Federal Circuit has ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board cannot deny Patent Owner an opportunity to address portions of a prior art reference first discussed in Petitioner’s Reply, and then rely on those same portions to hold the claims unpatentable.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) introduced the Ombudsman Program on April 6, 2010 with the ostensible goal of advancing patent applications that have stalled during the examination process.
On Friday, October 28, 2016, musicians Mark Ronson and Bruno Mars were hit with a copyright infringement suit based on their wildly popular hit “Uptown Funk.”
On November 2, 2016 the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a memo to Examiners on its stance on subject matter eligibility in response to the McRO and BASCOM Federal Circuit decisions, previously discussed at Global IP Matters.
Someone stole your invention and filed for a patent on it? Derivation proceedings in the Patent Office may be an answer. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) amended 35 U.S.C. § 135 to replace interference proceedings with a new process called derivation proceedings.
Several recent court decisions have shed light on the patent agent privilege, and now the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking to weigh-in on the issue.
On October 19, 2016, the ITC instituted Investigation No. 1025, based on a complaint filed on May 26, 2016, by Silicon Genesis Corporation (SiGen), against Soitec, S.A. (Soitec). As part of the institution, the ITC ordered that the ALJ issue an early initial determination regarding whether SiGen “has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.”
Since Kyle Bass founded Coalition for Affordable Drugs X LLC (CFAD) to challenge pharmaceutical patents, CFAD has filed numerous petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Office) seeking to institute inter partes review (IPR) proceedings to invalidate a number of pharmaceutical patents, including three patents owned by Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., as previously discussed at Global IP Matters.
The Federal Circuit reaffirmed last week that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) decision to discontinue inter partes review (IPR) proceedings is not reviewable on appeal.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently designated Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016), as precedential.  In this decision the Board clarified how to interpret method and system claims that include conditional language.
Disavowal can occur when a patent holder disavows the full scope of claim terms in the specification or during prosecution (e.g., through the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel). In either event, disavowal requires clear and unequivocal evidence that the claimed invention includes or does not include a particular feature. 
Sign up to receive email updates from Mintz.
Subscribe Now

Explore Other Viewpoints: