On May 2, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential opinion in SnapRays, d/b/a SnapPower v. Lighting Defense Group, discussing personal jurisdiction and – for the first time – Amazon’s “low-cost procedure … ‘[t]o efficiently resolve claims that third-party product listings infringe utility patents,’” called Amazon Patent Evaluation Express, or “APEX.” No. 2023-1184, Doc. 44 at 2 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2024) (citation omitted). APEX offers utility patent holders the ability to identify allegedly infringing products listed for sale on Amazon via the submi ..read more

IP is again being celebrated this year on April 26, with the World Intellectual Property Organization paying homage to the intersection of IP and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and “[b]uilding our common future with innovation and creativity.”[1] As a brief history lesson, in 2015, all United Nations Member States adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which “provides a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future.”[2] The core of the agenda is formed by 17 SDGs, which include important goals such as zero hunger; good ..read more

A major change to the patent landscape is coming. On March 12, 2024, the Judicial Conference of the United States announced that it will change how cases are assigned to judges, which will limit the ability of litigants to choose which judge is assigned to their case. Specifically, patent infringement cases will now be randomly assigned on a district-wide basis. This will have a significant impact on where patent holders file patent cases. The New Policy In most federal district courts, cases are randomly assigned to one of the many judges who sit in a particular court. As the Judicial Confere ..read more

Further to President Biden’s 2023 executive order (EO) on the safe, secure and trustworthy development and use of artificial intelligence (AI) last year (see https://www.bakerlaw.com/insights/white-house-instructs-uspto-to-provide-guidance-on-ai/), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released its much anticipated Inventorship Guidance on AI-Assisted Inventions (“Guidance”).[1] The Guidance is retroactive, meaning it applies to all patent applications and issued patents filed before, on or after February 13, 2024. The Guidance strives to ensure balance between protecting and incentiviz ..read more

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s grant of Zillow Group Inc.’s (“Zillow”) motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because the two International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) patents-at-issue, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,778,193 and 6,785,676 (the “’193 patent” and “’676 patent,” respectively) were directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp. v. Zillow Grp., Inc., No. 2022-1861, 2024 WL 89642 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 9, 2024). Specifically, the claims were found invalid under the Supreme Court’s two-step framework f ..read more

It has been a busy year for domain scammers – and the brand owners fighting back against them. According to numbers published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the Forum, the number of complaints brought under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) saw an annual increase of approximately 8 percent through year-end 2023. In all, nearly 9,000 complaints were filed, many challenging more than one fraudulent domain. This continues a pattern seen over the past decade, during which the number of complaints has risen a whopping 214 percent. UDRP complaints ..read more

There’s never a dull moment in the world of intellectual property – a fact that is increasingly apparent, as rapid growth in the field of artificial intelligence transforms the legal landscape at lightning speed. The inaugural BakerHostetler IP Perspectives (BHIPP) reflects BakerHostetler’s stance at the forefront of industry developments. Inspired by the client wins and business development highlights BHIPP was created to go a step beyond. It offers concise analysis from various IP practice teams of current challenges and trends as a showcase of attorneys’ knowledge and experience. There’s pl ..read more

Expanding on our blog post of January 2, 2024, yet another scam has been brought to our attention—with serious consequences. The signatory of a client was telephoned by the “Federal Trademark Office,” which requested a $400 payment for each of two applications filed a few days earlier. The caller’s telephone number showed as 571.272.4000 (made possible by caller ID spoofing software), which is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s number for its Application Assistance Unit. The caller identified the serial numbers of the applications and stated additional fees were necessary for their process ..read more

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 598 U.S. 594 (2023) (Amgen), in which the Court addressed whether Amgen’s functional antibody genus claims satisfy the enablement requirement, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released its guidelines for evaluating enablement.[1] The guidelines indicate that the USPTO will continue to use the Federal Circuit’s Wands factors when evaluating whether undue experimentation would be required in order to practice the claimed invention, and state that the Wands factors will be used “regardless of the technology.” Th ..read more

As the new year gets underway, we want to flag the newest misleading trademark email scams, as these communications have become more advanced in their targeting. Trademark owners should be wary of official-looking email solicitations from attorneys or law firms that claim to specialize in trademarks and are masquerading as Good Samaritans who wish to aid in protecting the company’s brand against another company that has contracted that firm to register the same mark. Over time, owners of U.S. trademark applications and registrations have become accustomed to receiving fraudulent emails from ba ..read more