All posts by Dennis Crouch

About Dennis Crouch

Law Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law. View all posts by Dennis Crouch →

Supreme Court Update: June 2024

June 7, 2024Patentdoctrine of equivalents, double patenting, notice-and-comment, obviousness, paid, patent eligibility, patent law, Supreme Court, tortious interferenceDennis Crouch

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Father’s Day Gear Guide

June 6, 2024PatentpaidDennis Crouch

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Mishandled Disclosures: A Greek Tragedy in IP Law

June 6, 2024Patentconfidentiality, Copyright, copyright infringement, en banc, legal malpractice, paid, patent law, Trade SecretsDennis Crouch

by Dennis Crouch

Neuropublic S.A., a Greek technology company, has filed a federal lawsuit against the law firm Ladas & Parry LLP, with several claims stemming from the firm's alleged mishandling of Neuropublic's confidential invention disclosure -- sending it out to a third party ("PatentManiac") for a preliminary novelty search which then (again allegedly) further leaked the disclosure. Although the case does not involve submission to AI algorithms, some of the questions here are similar to those many IP attorneys are considering when onboarding new AI tools.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Patently-O Bits and Bytes

June 4, 2024Patentpaid, patent agent, patent attorney, patent damages, patent drafting, patent eligibility, patent examiner, patent infringement, patent law, patent litigation, Patent Office, patent office comment period, patent office fees, patent office leadership, patent office policy, patent office regional office, patent prosecutionDennis Crouch

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

1 minute design patent survey

June 4, 2024Patentdesign patent, design patents, en banc, obviousness, paid, Section 103, surveyDennis Crouch

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

LKQ v. GM: Join us on June 4 at Noon (ET)

June 3, 2024Patentobviousness, paidDennis Crouch

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Goodbye Rosen references, hello Jennings references?

June 2, 2024Patentdesign patents, en banc, guest post, Jennings, obviousness, primary reference, Rosen, Section 103Dennis Crouch

Guest Post by Sarah Burstein, Professor of Law at Suffolk University Law School

LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech., 21-2348 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (en banc).

In its decision in LKQ v. GM, the en banc Federal Circuit may have raised as many questions as it answered. For now, I’d like to focus on one: What counts as a proper primary reference under LKQ? (more…)

Commenting on the USPTO’s Proposed Rule on Terminal Disclaimers

May 31, 2024Patentdouble patenting, Federal Circuit, obviousness, paid, patent claims, patent enforcement, patent law, patent validity, terminal disclaimers, USPTODennis Crouch

[I have substantially updated this post - correcting a couple of issues from the original and also added info from the letter from former USPTO leaders. - DC 6/1/24]

by Dennis Crouch

As I have previously discussed on Patently-O, the USPTO recently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that could significantly impact patent practice, particularly in the realm of terminal disclaimers filed to overcome non-statutory double patenting rejections. Dennis Crouch, Major Proposed Changes to Terminal Disclaimer Practice (and You are Not Going to Like it), Patently-O (May 9, 2024). Under the proposed rule, a terminal disclaimer will only be accepted by the USPTO if it includes an agreement that the patent will be unenforceable if tied (directly or indirectly) to another patent that has any claim invalidated or canceled based on prior art (anticipation or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103). This proposal has generated significant debate among patent practitioners, with many expressing concerns about its potential impact on innovation and patent rights. It is a dramatic change in practice because the typical rule required by statute is that the validity of each patent claim must be separately adjudged. See 35 U.S.C. § 282(a).

The comment period is open until early July, but a number of comments have already been submitted. And I looked through them in order to get some early feedback. You can read the comments here

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

The NYIPLA Brief: Advocating for Patent Term Adjustments

May 30, 2024Patent35 U.S.C. § 154(b), Cellect v. Vidal, double patenting, Federal Circuit, obviousness, obviousness-type double patenting, paid, patent law, patent term adjustment, Supreme CourtDennis Crouch

by Dennis Crouch

The Federal Circuit's 2023 decision in In re Cellect, LLC, 81 F.4th 1216 (Fed. Cir. 2023) has set the stage for a potentially significant Supreme Court case on 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 (ODP). Cellect is now seeking certiorari, and the New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA) has stepped in with an amicus brief supporting the petition, arguing that the case presents "questions of exceptional importance." Brief for New York Intellectual Property Law Association as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner at 23, Cellect, LLC v. Vidal, No. 23-1231 (U.S. May 28, 2024).

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Implied Contracts with the Government over Counterfeit Coins

May 30, 2024Patentcounterfeit coins, court of federal claims, government contracts, implied contract, paid, patent lawDennis Crouch

by Dennis Crouch

Although not expressly an IP case, the Federal Circuit's new decision in The Portland Mint v. United States does focus on counterfeiting coins as well as implied contracts with the Federal Government.

The key facts are as follows:

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Celebrity Names and Trademark Claims: Insights from the Hobbs Winery Case

May 28, 2024Patentcancellation, celebrity, commercial interest, minority ownership, paid, proximate causation, Trademark, trademark law, zone of interestsDennis Crouch

by Dennis Crouch

The Federal Circuit's recent decision involving Paul Hobbs and Hobbs Winery raises a number of important issues for anyone investing in celebrities or influencers. In the case, early investors in Hobbs Winery were unable to prevent Mr. Hobbs from using his name in other wine ventures, even though a registered mark on PAUL HOBBS was owned by Hobbs Winery. This case was decided on statutory grounds - with a holding that minority owners in a company are not authorized to bring a TM cancellation to protect a mark held by the company. This is an important decision because it prevents the TTAB from being used to settle internal corporate management issues.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

WIPO Adopts Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and Associated Traditional Knowledge

May 26, 2024Patentbiopiracy, genetic resources, paid, patent disclosure, traditional knowledge, WIPODennis Crouch

by Dennis Crouch

For many years, there have been concerns about "biopiracy" - the misappropriation of genetic resources (GR) and traditional knowledge (TK) from indigenous peoples and local communities, often in developing countries. Biopiracy involves researchers or companies obtaining GR or TK, using it to develop commercial products like medicines, and obtaining patents without adequately compensating or getting permission from the original TK/GR holders.

Some well-known examples of alleged biopiracy include: patents on wound-healing properties of turmeric, which had long been known in India; patents related to neem tree extracts, also used for centuries in India; Japanese and American patents on extracts of the African "Hoodia" cactus, traditional used by San people to stave off hunger; and a US patent on the Amazonian "ayahuasca" vine, considered sacred and used in ceremonies by indigenous peoples. You can see a Sean Connery look-alike doing this in my image below.

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) member states have adopted a groundbreaking new treaty addressing patent rights in the context of these genetic resources and traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources. The WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and Associated Traditional Knowledge, finalized on May 24, 2024,

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

USPTO Adapts to CAFC’s New Guidelines: What Design Patent Examiners Need to Know

May 24, 2024Patentanalogous art, CAFC, design patent, Graham factors, motivation to combine, obviousness, ordinary designer, paid, primary reference, secondary reference, USPTO, visual similarityDennis Crouch

by Dennis Crouch

On May 22, 2024, the day after the Federal Circuit's en banc LKQ v. GM decision, the USPTO issued a memorandum to its examiners providing updated guidance and examination instructions in light of the court's overturning of the long-standing Rosen-Durling test for determining obviousness of design patents. The memo, signed by USPTO Director Kathi Vidal, aims to immediately align USPTO practices with the more flexible approach outlined by the Federal Circuit, which eliminated the rigid requirements that: (1) a primary reference be "basically the same" as the claimed design, and (2) secondary references be "so related" to the primary reference that features in one would suggest application to the other. This is a major shift in examination practice for design patents so it will be important to watch the developments to see whether the office ramps up design examination.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Speck v. Bates: Federal Circuit’s Two-Way Test for Pre-Critical Date Claims Limits Belated Interferences and Derivation Proceedings

May 23, 2024Patentcritical date, derivation, en banc, interference, materially different, obviousness, paid, patent law, Section 135(b)(1), two-way testDennis Crouch

by Dennis Crouch

Speck v. Bates, No. 23-1147 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2024)

In likely one of the last interference proceeding appeals, the Federal Circuit has applied a "two-way test" to determine whether pre-critical date claims and post-critical date claims are "materially different" under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 135(b)(1). The court found that Bates' post-critical date claims in its U.S. Patent Application No. 14/013,591 were time-barred because they were materially different from Bates' pre-critical date claims.

Although the decision is based upon an interference proceeding, the same provision is found within the new version of 135(b) that covers

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Decoding Patent Ownership beginning with Core Principles

May 22, 2024Patentautomatic assignment, employment agreement, en banc, inventorship, obviousness, paid, patent law, reasonable expectation of successDennis Crouch

by Dennis Crouch

In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit vacated a district court's grant of summary judgment that an inventor, Dr. Mark Core, had automatically assigned a patent associated with his PhD thesis to his then-employer and education funder TRW. Core Optical Techs., LLC v. Nokia Corp., Nos. 23-1001 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2024). The key issue was whether Dr. Core developed the patented invention "entirely on [his] own time" under his employment agreement. The majority opinion written by Judge Taranto and joined by Judge Dyk held the contract language was ambiguous on this point and remanded for further factual development to determine the parties' intent. Judge Mayer dissented.

Although not discussed in the court's decision, the appellant brief includes a suggestion that the Federal Circuit should "narrow or overrule" the automatic assignment law seen in FilmTec Corp. v. Allied Signal, Inc., 939 F.2d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1991), and its progeny

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Nominate Someone (Yourself?) for the USPTO’s Advisory Committees

May 22, 2024Patentadvisory committee, nominations, paid, patent public advisory committee, trademark public advisory committee, USPTODennis Crouch

by Dennis Crouch

The USPTO is seeking nominations for several open positions on its Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) and Trademark Public Advisory Committee (TPAC).

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Federal Circuit Overrules Rosen-Durling Test for Design Patent Obviousness

May 21, 2024Patentanalogous art, design patent, en banc, Graham v. John Deere Co., Historical Cases, KSR, obviousness, paid, Whitman SaddleDennis Crouch

by Dennis Crouch

In a highly anticipated en banc decision, the Federal Circuit has overruled the longstanding Rosen-Durling test for assessing obviousness of design patents. LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech. Operations LLC, No. 21-2348, slip op. at 15 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2024) (en banc). The court held that the two-part test's requirements that 1) the primary reference must be "basically the same" as the claimed design, and 2) any secondary references must be "so related" to the primary reference that features from one would suggest application to the other, "impose[] limitations absent from § 103's broad and flexible standard" and are "inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent" of both KSR (2007) and Whitman Saddle (1893). Rejecting the argument that KSR did not implicate design patent obviousness, the court reasoned that 35 U.S.C. § 103 "applies to all types of patents" and the text does not "differentiate" between design and utility patents. Therefore, the same obviousness principles should govern. This decision will generally make design patents harder

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Cellect or Reject? SCOTUS Asked to Consider Fate of ODP Doctrine

May 20, 2024PatentCellect v. Vidal, double patenting, en banc, obviousness, obviousness-type double patenting, paid, patent law, patent term adjustment, patent term extensionDennis Crouch

by Dennis Crouch

In its new petition for certiorari in Cellect LLC v. Vidal, No. __ (U.S. May 20, 2024), Cellect argues that the Federal Circuit erred in upholding the PTAB's (PTAB) invalidation of Cellect's four patents based on the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (ODP). The key issue is whether ODP can cut short the patent term extension provided by the Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) statute, 35 U.S.C. § 154(b). Meanwhile, Dir. Vidal is looking to extend the power of ODP via rulemaking. This is an important case coming at an important time.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Federal Circuit Limits Defendant Attorneys’ Fees Awards for IPR Expenses

May 20, 2024Patent28 U.S.C. § 1927, attorney fees, exceptional case, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, IPR, paid, plaintiff's counsel, prevailing defendant, Section 285Dennis Crouch

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Discussing Stern’s “Myth of Nonrivalry” for Patent Law

May 19, 2024PatentDamages, double patenting, information goods, injunctions, intellectual property, nonrivalry, Oil States, paid, patent law, property rightsDennis Crouch

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.