New USPTO Director Review Rules
Patently-O
by Dennis Crouch
3h ago
by Dennis Crouch The USPTO has published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to formalize the process for Director Review of PTAB decisions. These proposed rules come in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021), which underscored the necessity for the USPTO Director to have the ability to review PTAB decisions to comply with the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  Of course, the USPTO has been operating under an interim procedure for Director Review that began soon after Arthrex, but has been updated a couple of times ..read more
Visit website
Patentee’s Unclean Hands
Patently-O
by Dennis Crouch
3h ago
by Dennis Crouch The Federal Circuit’s new decision in Luv’N’Care, Ltd. (LNC) v. Laurain and EZPZ, relies on the doctrine of unclean hands to deny relief to the patentee (Laurain and EZPZ), affirming the district court’s judgment.  The appellate panel also vacated and remanded the district court’s finding that LNC failed to prove the asserted patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during prosecution, as well as its grant of summary judgment one of the asserted patents was invalid as obvious.  U.S. Patent No. 9,462,903. The case here involves bowls/plates attached to a ma ..read more
Visit website
What I’m doing with LLM-Based GenAI Tools
Patently-O
by Dennis Crouch
1d ago
by Dennis Crouch As many of you know, I have done machine learning work for many years — starting in the 1990s while in college.  However, like most of the world, I have been surprised and amazed by the power of LLM-based GenAI technology and have been trying to figure out ways to use it both for patent practice and in my job as a law professor.  I hope that it helps me become both more effective and more efficient. On the Patently-O side, I have been honing my approach somewhat. I tried to have a GenAI tool (like ChatGPT or Claude) simply write a blog post for me, but those attempts ..read more
Visit website
Patent Term Adjustment and Obviousness-Type Double Patenting: Cellect’s Bid for Supreme Court Review
Patently-O
by Dennis Crouch
2d ago
by Dennis Crouch The Federal Circuit’s August 2023 decision in In re Cellect, LLC has set-up a significant question regarding the interplay between the patent term adjustment (PTA) statute, 35 U.S.C. § 154(b), and the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP). Now, Cellect is seeking Supreme Court review, recently filing a petition for an extension of time that also indicated its intent to file. Cellect’s petition is now due May 20, 2024, and I expect significant support from the patent owner community. Patentees often receive PTA due to USPTO delays that otherwis ..read more
Visit website
The Design Law Treaty and the Struggle for International Harmonization of Industrial Design Protection
Patently-O
by Dennis Crouch
3d ago
By Dennis crouch The international IP community is moving toward further harmonizing legal protection for industrial designs. For almost twenty years, member states of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) have been negotiating a Design Law Treaty (DLT) that would streamline and align procedural requirements for obtaining registered design rights across jurisdictions. If successful, the DLT would make it “significantly easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to obtain industrial design protection overseas as a result of simplified, streamlined and aligned procedures and req ..read more
Visit website
Guest post by Prof. Holbrook: Extraterritoriality and Patent Damages Under § 271(a)
Patently-O
by Jason Rantanen
4d ago
Guest post by Tim Holbrook. Robert B. Yegge Endowed Distinguished Professor of Law and Provost’s Professor, University of Denver Sturm College of Law. United States patents are generally territorial.  Their exclusive rights only operate within the United States and its territories.  Or so one may think reading the Patent Act.  Moreover, in a global marketplace, the territorial nature of intellectual property rights can create challenges. It would be simpler for a patent holder to just use the U.S. patent to cover foreign activity. This is especially true if a domestic act of inf ..read more
Visit website
Using AI in your Patent Practice
Patently-O
by Dennis Crouch
5d ago
By Dennis Crouch Over the past year I’ve been investigating various generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools for assisting patent attorneys in their practice.  I have a strong belief that these tools and their progeny are now fixtures in our legal environment and are being used to both improve efficient delivery of legal services and to also improve the quality of those services.  Of course the generative creativity of our LLMs go hand in hand with hidden false narratives or hallucinations. Vendors are stepping up to thread the needle here: providing valuable GenAI tools whil ..read more
Visit website
Docketing Nightmare: CPA Global wins Despite their Docketing Error; Law Firm still on the hook for Missed Deadline
Patently-O
by Dennis Crouch
5d ago
By Dennis Crouch In a recent unpublished decision, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of CPA Global Support Services, LLC (“CPA”) (now part of Clarivate) against a claim of negligent misrepresentation brought by inventor James C. Robinson, M.D. and his patent holding company (Spectrum Spine).  Robinson’s firm FisherBroyles had relied upon the dates erroneously entered by CPA and missed the national stage filing deadlines.  The parallel case against FisherBroyles is still pending in Georgia state court. Robinson v. CPA Global Support Services, LLC, No. A24 ..read more
Visit website
Federal Circuit Affirms ITC Divided Opinion in Sonos v. ITC
Patently-O
by Dennis Crouch
6d ago
by Dennis Crouch In a non-precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit has affirmed the US International Trade Commission’s (ITC) final determination in the patent infringement dispute between Sonos and Google involving smart speaker technology. Sonos, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Nos. 2022-1421, 2022-1573 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2024).  The ITC had issued a split opinion – finding that Google infringed a number of Sonos speaker patents, but concluded that Google’s proposed work-around was non-infringing.  Both sides appealed and the Federal Circuit’s deferential standard of review resulted i ..read more
Visit website
De Forest Radio v. GE: A Landmark Supreme Court Decision on the Invention Requirement
Patently-O
by Dennis Crouch
1w ago
By Dennis Crouch In 1931, the United States Supreme Court decided a landmark case on the patentability of inventions, De Forest Radio Co. v. General Electric Co., 283 U.S. 664 (1931), amended, 284 U.S. 571 (1931). The case involved a patent infringement suit over an improved vacuum tube used in radio communications. While the case predated the codification of the nonobviousness requirement in 35 U.S.C. § 103 as part of the Patent Act of 1952, it nonetheless applied a similar requirement for “invention.” I wanted to review the case because it is one relied upon in the recent Vanda v. Teva pet ..read more
Visit website

Follow Patently-O on FeedSpot

Continue with Google
Continue with Apple
OR