by Dennis Crouch

President Trump has formally nominated John A. Squires to serve as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The White House announced the nomination on Tuesday, and the Senate received it on Monday, March 10, referring it to the Committee on the Judiciary. The nomination confirms reporting by Dani Kass at Law360 from mid-February that identified Squires as the likely pick.

Squires currently serves as a partner at Dilworth Paxson LLP and brings substantial intellectual property experience to the role, including a nine-year tenure as Chief IP Counsel at Goldman Sachs (2000-2009). He has particularly focused on emerging technologies including artificial intelligence, blockchain, fintech, and cybersecurity.  In addition though, Squires holds chemistry degree from Bucknell. According to reports, Squires beat out several other candidates for the role, including acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart; Intel's intellectual property policy leader Vishal Amin (who served as IP czar during Trump's first administration); former chief counsel for the Senate subcommittee on IP under Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) Brad Watts; and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP partner Bill Atkins.

by Dennis Crouch

Sierra Wireless, ULC v. Sisvel S.p.A., Nos. 2023-1059, 2023-1085, 2023-1089, 2023-1125 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 10, 2025). 

In this case, the Federal Circuit has vacated and remanded, holding that the PTAB (1) improperly construed the claims and (2) abused its discretion by relying on testimony from an expert witness who did not meet the Board's defined standard for ordinary skill in the art. Both of these holdings will be housed within patent law's extensive closet full of "tricks-and-traps" for the unwary. 

by Dennis Crouch

The Federal Circuit is currently reviewing a trademark opposition dispute, Heritage Alliance & AFA Action, Inc. v. The American Policy Roundtable (Appeal No. 24-1155), centered around two competing marks: IVOTERGUIDE.COM  and IVOTERS.COM. The following are, more than anything, a set of my notes on the case as I'm thinking through its importance.

by Dennis Crouch

The fine line between construing claims in light of the specification and improperly importing limitations from the specification represents one of patent law's most persistent interpretive challenges. The Federal Circuit in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) established that while claims "must be read in view of the specification," courts must avoid "reading a limitation from the specification into the claim" absent express definition (lexicography) or disavowal.

In IQRIS Technologies LLC v. Point Blank Enterprises, Inc., 2023-2062 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2025), the Federal Circuit has vacated and remanded a S.D. Fla. grant of summary judgment of noninfringement on this issue, finding that the district court's claim construction improperly limited the term "pull cord."

The case centers on two IQRIS patents, US7814567 and US8256020, which share a common specification and relate to quick release systems for tactical vests worn by soldiers, law enforcement officers, and first responders. The patent propose a "pull cord" that actuates a release hook to detach portions of the vest.

Point Blank and National Molding were accused of infringement based on their "Quad Release" and "Evil Twin" quick-release systems. Both systems have use triggers that the user pulls or flips, that then actuate "Bowden" cables (similar to bicycle brake cables) to release the vest.  One example of this trigger is shown above.

by Dennis Crouch

The United States International Trade Commission (USITC or ITC) operates as an independent, quasi-judicial federal agency the mission of safeguarding US domestic industries from injury caused by foreign imports.  This is a protectionist agency. In the patent context, the ITC exercises its authority under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which prohibits the importation of articles that infringe valid U.S. patents. Unlike district courts, the ITC cannot award monetary damages but instead provides exclusion orders that block infringing imports at the border and cease-and-desist orders that prevent domestic sales of previously imported infringing products.  These orders are then enforced by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a branch of Homeland Security.  The ITC is attractive to patent holders because of its relatively expeditious "target date" of 16-18 months from institution to final determination (compared to multi-year district court proceedings), its experienced Administrative Law Judges who frequently handle patent matters, the difficulty respondents face in staying ITC investigations during parallel PTAB trial proceedings, and, as mentioned above, the availability of injunctive relief (via exclusion order) despite eBay.

One measure Congress took to ensure the ensures stays on-mission is through the "domestic industry" requirement.  Before the ITC can block infringing imports, the patent holder must to show the existence of a domestic industry "relating to the articles protected by the patent." 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2). This requirement has two components: the "economic prong" and the "technical prong" that we'll dig into later.

When is Transnational Activity Sufficiently Domestic: The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Lashify highlights an ongoing situation with regard to domestic industry.  Lashify, Inc. v. ITC, No. 23-1245 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 5, 2025).  Lashify designs its fake eyelash products in the U.S., but manufactures them abroad, and the question is when domestic non-manufacturing activity is enough to satisfy the domestic industry requirement.

by Dennis Crouch

In February 2021, Gesture Technology sued several companies, including Apple, LG Electronics, and Google, for infringing its U.S. Patent No. 7,933,431. The patent, which expired in July 2020, covers technology for using cameras to detect user gestures as input for controlling handheld computing devices.  Four IPR petitions followed:

• Unified Patents filed on May 14, 2021. IPR2021-
  00917;
• Apple filed on May 21, 2021. IPR2021-00920;
• LG Electronics and Google later filed "nearly identical" petitions that were joined with Apple's IPR. IPR2022-00091 and IPR2022-00359.

The PTAB instituted the IPRs and ultimately came out with a mixed result - cancelling most of the claims, but leaving a couple standing (claims 11 and 13).  On appeal, the Federal Circuit has now affirmed. Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC, No. 23-1475 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2025) (precedential); Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 23-1444 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2025) (non-precedential). In the pair of opinions, both authored by Judge Prost, the court focused both on procedural IPR issues as well as substantive patent law issues. In this post, I focus mainly on the court's explanation of the obviousness standards, claim construction under §112 ¶6, IPR jurisdiction over expired patents, and IPR estoppel.  The Federal Circuit explanation here makes sense except for its analysis of estoppel, which comes at the bottom of the post.

by Dennis Crouch

After 18 years of litigation, the Federal Circuit has once again ruled in the patent infringement case Halo v. Pulse.  The February 28, 2025 opinion, authored by Judge Bryson, deals with enhanced damages, attorney fees, prejudgment interest, and the denial of a new damages trial.  On the biggest issue, punitive damages, I explain why the Federal Circuit was wrong in affirming the district court’s refusal to enhance damages.  In my view, the Federal Circuit sidestepped the practical implications of the jury's willfulness, treating the verdict as a checkbox rather than a meaningful  factual finding for enhanced damages.

Read on for my full analysis.

The pendulum of the mind
alternates between sense and nonsense,
not between right and wrong. 
- Carl Jung (Memories, Dreams, Reflections)

By Dennis Crouch

In a significant policy shift, Acting USPTO Director Coke Stewart has rescinded the June 21, 2022, Vidal memorandum that had significantly curtailed discretionary denials of PTAB post-grant proceedings. This rescission signals a potentially dramatic return to broader PTAB discretion in denying institution of inter partes reviews (IPRs) in cases with parallel district court litigation. I believe we can expect a significant uptick in discretionary denials of IPR institution petitions. And, patent holders in district court will be looking for ways to quickly move cases forward in order to provide evidence that IPR denial is appropriate.

The tersely worded announcement from the USPTO simply directs parties to once again rely on PTAB precedent for guidance, specifically highlighting the precedential PTAB decisions of Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) and Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020). The announcement further states that any portions of PTAB or Director Review decisions relying on the now-rescinded Vidal Memorandum shall not be binding or persuasive.

Since its creation under the AIA, the PTAB has rapidly established itself as America's most active patent litigation forum -- and the only one that is effectively risk-free for patent challengers. Before the AIA created the IPR system, district courts rarely invalidated patents on obviousness grounds because of the doctrine's technical complexity that often went beyond the span of generalist federal judges and juries. PTAB judges are hired for their willingness and ability to dig deeply into complex obviousness arguments involving the combination of multiple references. Over the past decade, the PTAB has invalidated tens of thousands of patent claims as obvious. To put this in perspective, I am fairly confident the PTAB has invalidated more patent claims on obviousness grounds in its short life than all federal courts combined since the founding of our patent system in 1790.  AIA Trials have been a huge shock to the patent system -- a shock that has almost entirely favored patent challengers.  Thus, Director Stewart's new policy change is important as it is likely to redirect access to this powerful alternative forum.

by Dennis Crouch

I sometimes have difficulty following doublethink. The recent implementation of the Republican Administration's executive orders on diversity initiatives has created a nuanced and seemingly contradictory landscape in federal agencies, including the USPTO.

In January 2025, the White House issued executive orders "Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing" and "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity." These orders were followed by a February 5, 2025 memorandum from the Office of Personnel Management providing additional guidance on implementation. At the same time, the White House has repeatedly offered statements and other executive actions that focus particularly on protecting and "defending women."

The USPTO's implementation response has been notably selective.

by Dennis Crouch

As federal agencies begin to respond to the new Republican Administration's agency reorganization directive, the USPTO finds itself in an unusual position. Unlike many federal agencies, the USPTO operates primarily on user fees rather than appropriated funds. However, this self-funding status does not exempt the agency from the new "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) initiative requiring agencies to develop plans for "large-scale reductions in force" (RIFs) by March 13, 2025.  opm-omb-memo-guidance-on-agency-rif-2-26-2025.

Depending on how Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Acting USPTO Director Coke Stewart interpret and implement these directives, the impact on USPTO operations could be extremely disruptive. Lutnick has indicated he is in favor of major reductions in force, although not speaking directly about the USPTO. These negotiations continue behind closed doors while patent examiners, practitioners and applicants continue to sit in limbo about potential impacts on examination quality, processing times, and the stability of the U.S. patent system.

A new February 26, 2025 memorandum from OMB and OPM directs agencies to take serious steps toward shrinking their activity, workforce, and physical footprint.  Agencies have been directed to focus on "maximum elimination of functions that are not statutorily mandated." The memo notes that agencies should narrowly interpret statutory requirements:

Agency leadership must confirm statutes have not been interpreted in a way that expands requirements beyond what the statute actually requires. Instead, statutes should be interpreted to cover only what functions they explicitly require.

An important note here is that much of the USPTO operation is guided by precedential cases that are effectively already interpreting the statutes. This would seemingly guide any interpretation offered by the agency director.  Although some of this may seem dramatic, the Agency is part of the executive branch, and thus subject to the direction of the President and his sworn duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."  Cuts are ongoing, but major systemwide upheavals are unlikely for several more weeks. We should know more after the March 13 agency deadline.

The memo from OPM creates a framework for analyzing which USPTO functions might be vulnerable to cuts -- some aspects of this are discussed in below.  The rest of this post talks through various USPTO functions -- considering ones that are statutorily mandated versus those that are discretionary as one approach to seeing where cuts might occur.

by Dennis Crouch

Since late 2022, the extraordinary demand for glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1s) like Eli Lilly's tirzepatide (marketed as Mounjaro for diabetes and Zepbound for weight loss) has created a persistent nationwide shortage. This shortage opened a temporary but lucrative opportunity for compounding pharmacies, which the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act permits to produce copycat versions of branded drugs during officially declared shortages. In December 2024, the FDA abruptly determined that the tirzepatide shortage had resolved and removed these products from its shortage list, effectively terminating compounders' legal authority to produce these drugs. With the recent transition to the Trump administration—whose leader has repeatedly criticized pharmaceutical companies for "getting away with murder" on pricing and specifically targeted the cost of weight loss medications—I have wondered whether the FDA might reverse course under new leadership and side with compounders offering lower-priced alternatives.  The FDA's new court filing indicates that the agency is standing firmly with patent holders and the drug approval system that grants market exclusivity.  [FDA Brief ZepBound]

The compounding pharmacies have been providing much cheaper versions of the drugs and apparently different dosing regimens.

A number of plaintiffs sued the FDA in 2024, seeking a preliminary injunction to permit ongoing compounding. Outsourcing Facilities Ass'n v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., No. 4:24-cv-00953-P (N.D. Tex. filed 2024).   In its brief opposing the preliminary injunction, the FDA defends its data-driven conclusion that "Lilly's supply is currently exceeding demand and will meet or exceed projected demand across all strengths of Mounjaro and Zepbound." The FDA's determination relied heavily on confidential data provided by Lilly. I expect that this brief will effectively end the case for the plaintiffs, although they will likely continue to fight for some time.