Does Justice Thomas Hate Invention or Just the Hubris of Inventors?

Patent, , , , , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

The Supreme Court recently decided Moore v. United States, — U.S. — (June 20, 2024), a case focusing on the constitutionality of the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT). While the majority opinion, authored by Justice Kavanaugh, upheld the MRT, Justice Thomas published a strong dissent relying upon an invention metaphor in a decidedly negative light, something that he has done in several other recent opinions. For Thomas, judicial invention is a synonym to judicial activism and antithetical to his approach that looks primarily to historic preservation, especially when interpreting the U.S. Constitution.

In Moore, the majority held that the MRT, which attributes the realized and undistributed income of an American-controlled foreign corporation to the entity’s American shareholders and then taxes those shareholders, “falls squarely within Congress’s constitutional authority to tax.” The Court reached this holding by relying on its “longstanding precedents” that allow Congress to attribute the undistributed income of an entity to the entity’s shareholders or partners for tax purposes.

Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, dissented. He argued that the Sixteenth Amendment requires realization for income to be taxed without apportionment.  His main complaint against the majority opinion is that it “invent[ed]” a new attribution doctrine to reach its conclusion.

Justice Thomas’ negative invocation of “invention” in Moore is part of a broader trend in his recent opinions. Just a week before Moore, in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U.S. — (June 13, 2024), Justice Thomas refused to “invent a new doctrine of doctor standing,” concluding that “there would be no principled way to cabin such a sweeping doctrinal change to doctors or other healthcare providers.”  Similarly, in a recent concurring opinion, Justice Thomas argued that “Federal courts have the power to grant only the equitable relief ‘traditionally accorded by courts of equity,’ not the flexible power to invent whatever new remedies may seem useful at the time.” Alexander v. S.C. State Conf. of the NAACP, 144 S. Ct. 1221 (2024) (Thomas, J., concurring).  And in his dissent in US v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. — (June 21, 2024), Justice Thomas complained that “At argument, the Government invented yet another position.” (more…)

Patentees Out of Luck Again: CAFed Sides with DraftKings that Remote Gambling Patent Ineligible

Patent, , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

The Federal Circuit has affirmed a D.N.J. court’s dismissal of patentee Beteiro’s infringement complaints against DraftKings, et al., agreeing that the asserted claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Beteiro, LLC v. DraftKings Inc., No. 2022-2275 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2024). The patents at issue were directed to methods of facilitating remote gambling activity using devises equipped with GPS.  (more…)

Double Trouble: IPO asks for Supreme Court review of PTA/ODP Cellect dispute

Patent, , , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

A second amicus brief has been filed – this one from the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) – encouraging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in Cellect, LLC v. Vidal, No. 23-1231. The case concerns 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). (more…)

Trade Secret Misappropriation Preliminary Injunction Reversed

Patent, , , , , , , ,

By Dennis Crouch

The Federal Circuit has reversed a preliminary injunction order in a trade secret misappropriation case, finding that the district court abused its discretion by failing to properly evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits and the balance of harms. Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow, Co., No. 2024-1137 (Fed. Cir. June 17, 2024). The appellate court held that the district court’s analysis was deficient in several key respects, including not addressing the statute of limitations defense, defining trade secrets too broadly, and not sufficiently assessing irreparable harm and the public interest.

This classic trade secret case involves former employees left to join a competitor.  As free humans, they are permitted to take their skill and wisdom to the new jobs, but are forbidden from misappropriating trade secret knowledge.  That line drawing is particularly difficult, and one reason why many employers moved toward contractual non-compete agreements. The case is also complicated because the defendant here admit to reverse engineering that apparently lead to some substantial similarities between the products.

The decision highlights a high bar for obtaining a preliminary injunction, even in trade secret cases involving competitors where we previously may have assumed irreparable harm.  The Federal Circuit here explained that lower courts are required to individually evaluate each of the four injunction factors – likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of hardships, and public interest. Conclusory assertions of competitive harm are insufficient to show irreparable injury.  For trade secret claims in particular, the alleged trade secrets must be defined with specificity. But, this proof is often difficult at the preliminary injunction stage of a case when the particular knowledge used by the defendant has not been fully discovered.

The Federal Circuit has been seen as largely supporting strong trade secrecy rights. However, this decision may put a damper on forum shopping attempts. (more…)

Democracy on Trial: Chestek and the Future of USPTO Accountability

Patent, , , , , , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

The pending petition for certiorari in Chestek v. Vidal focuses on the extend that the APA requires the USPTO to follow notice-and-comment requirements when promulgating regulations under 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2). In its decision below, the Federal Circuit held that the USPTO is exempt from these requirements because the types of rules it is authorized to issue under Section 2(b)(2) are procedural in nature, and the APA excuses “rules of agency … procedure” from the requirements.  There are two ways that the Federal Circuit potentially erred:

  1. The TM applicant home-address requirement being challenged here is not the type of procedural rule exempted under the APA; and
  2. Even if it is procedural, the particular requirements of the Patent Act’s section 2(b)(2) requires following the notice and comment requirements.

The Federal Circuit agreed that 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2) requires USPTO regulations to be “made in accordance with” the APA — but disagreed that this requires notice-and-comment for all new regulations. The court concluded that the APA inherently includes an exception for procedural requirements and so the USPTO was not required to follow notice-and-comment rulemaking when promulgating the trademark applicant home-address rule, because the court deemed it to be a procedural rather than substantive rule exempt from those APA requirements.

Five amicus briefs were recently filed in support of the petitioner, arguing that Supreme Court review is warranted to correct the Federal Circuit’s erroneous decision, arguing that the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of Section 2(b)(2) is flawed and undermines important principles of administrative law. (more…)

Federal Circuit Affirms Patent Rejection for Lack of Enablement in In re Pen

Patent, , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

The Federal Circuit (CAFC) recently affirmed a USPTO enablement rejection — holding that the patentee did not enable the “full scope” of the claimed invention.  In re Pen, 23-2282 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (non-precedential).  As an aside, the listed inventor’s legal name is “The Pen;” first and last name respectively, with no middle initial.  Based upon Pen’s address, he is related to “The People’s Email Network.”  In the case, Pen represented himself pro se. (more…)

Trump Too Small: Supreme Court Upholds Lanham Act’s Restriction on Registering Marks With Living Individual’s Names Without Consent

Patent, , , , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

In an important trademark law and free speech decision, the Supreme Court held in Vidal v. Elster, 602 U.S. ___ (2024), that the Lanham Act’s “names clause” barring registration of a mark that “[c]onsists of or comprises a name . . . identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent”, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c), does not violate the First Amendment. Writing for the Court, Justice Thomas distinguished this case from the Court’s prior decisions in Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017) (disparaging marks) and Iancu v. Brunetti, 588 U.S. 388 (2019) (scandalous marks), which struck down other Lanham Act restrictions as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Although content-based, the Court concluded that the names clause is viewpoint-neutral and consistent with the longstanding history and tradition of trademark law. (more…)

Pending En Banc Petitions at the Federal Circuit

Patent, , , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

The Federal Circuit recently decided the en banc design patent case of LKQ v. GM, but the court has not issued an en banc decision in a utility patent case since 2018.  There are currently four interesting petitions pending before the court.

(more…)

Design Patent Examination Updates

Patent, , , , , ,

Ten years ago – 2014 – the Supreme Court decided Alice Corp v. CLS Bank, holding that – yes indeed – the expansive language of Mayo v. Prometheus (2012) applies equally to software and technology patents.   A few weeks later, the USPTO began a dramatic transformation – pulling back notices of allowance and issuing thousands of supplemental office actions. The Federal Circuit’s May 2024 en banc decision in LKQ v. GM is perhaps as dramatic a change for the design patent arena as Alice was for utility patents.  The old Rosen-Durling test made it almost impossible to reject a design patent as obvious except for extreme cases involving either direct copying or extremely broad claims.  The key difficulty was that precedent required the obviousness inquiry to begin with a single prior art reference that is “basically the same” as the claimed design – a roughly 1-to-1 relationship.  Further, any secondary references had to be ‘so related’ to the primary reference that features in one would suggest application of those features to the other.” In LKQ, the court found those requirements “improperly rigid” under principles of KSR which require a flexible obviousness inquiry.  The overall effect is to make it easier to find a design patent obvious. (more…)

Veterans’ Benefits at the Supreme Court: The Battle Over Benefit-of-the-Doubt

Patent, , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

In April 2024, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the consolidated cases of Bufkin v. McDonough and Thornton v. McDonough, two veterans’ benefits cases on appeal from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The cases involve the “benefit-of-the-doubt” rule, a longstanding principle that is codified in veterans law that requires the VA to resolve close or unclear issues in a veteran’s favor when adjudicating benefits claims. [SCT Docket]

Both Bufkin and Thornton are veterans who were denied disability benefits by the VA. (more…)

Supreme Court Update: June 2024

Patent, , , , , , , ,

The US Supreme Court’s October 2023 term will come to a close later this month.  The patent side has not seen much action in terms of new cases. 27 IP-related petitions for writ of certiorari have been filed during this time. Of those 23 have been denied. Four recently filed petitions are still pending. In each of the remaining cases, respondent has indicated that it will be filing a brief.

  • Cellect, LLC v. Vidal (23-1231): Whether a patent procured in good faith can be invalidated for obviousness-type double patenting when the improper term extension is due to Patent Term Adjustment.  NYIPLA amicus in support; USPTO responsive brief due: July 22, 2024.
  • Chestek PLLC v. Vidal (23-1217): Whether the USPTO is exempt from notice-and-comment requirements when exercising its rulemaking power under 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2). USPTO responsive brief due: July 15, 2024.
  • Eolas Technologies Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (23-1184): Patent eligibility issues. Responsive brief due: July 31, 2024.
  • Surti v. Fleet Engineers, Inc. (23-1142): Pro se patent owner focused on DoE as well as tortious interference. Responsive brief due: July 22, 2024.

I’ve listed these in what I see as the most to least likely grant.  Cellect is of particular interest as debates over double patenting continue. Based upon the timing of the briefs, a certiorari decision won’t come until the Fall.

Father’s Day Gear Guide

Patent

Father’s Day is Coming Up! Here is the List for 2024:

  1. TheraGun: I use mine almost every day before working out to help with sore muscles and some tendonitis.
  2. Free Fly SPF Hoodie: Super comfortable and looks great along with sun blocking for my northern European skin.
  3. iRobot Roomba: This is great because I feel like I’m cleaning just by pushing start.
  4. Cheap Earbuds: I purchased expensive earbuds one time, but ended up losing one of them.  So, these days I just go for the cheaper ones.  My $20 JLab Go Air True have lasted about 18 months now.
  5. Cooking Thermometer: This is what I need. I’ve been cooking more meat lately but kind of winging-it in terms of the cooking level.  These range from $10 to $110.

 

Mishandled Disclosures: A Greek Tragedy in IP Law

Patent, , , , , , ,

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. (more…)

Patently-O Bits and Bytes

Patent, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

USPTO Patent News:

  • Patent number 12 million issued on Tuesday, June 4, 2024, to Pacific Biosciences of California.  The patent covers particular labeled nucleotide analogs that include an avidin protein for use in analyzing enzymatic reactions and molecular recognition events, such as single-molecule real-time nucleic acid sequencing. From the file history, it looks like David Roise was the lead attorney on the case.
  • Derris Banks has been appointed as the Regional Director of the USPTO’s Elijah J. McCoy Midwest Regional Office (Detroit), where he will oversee outreach efforts while serving inventors and entrepreneurs in the Midwest region.  Banks has been at the USPTO since joining as an examiner in 1994, rising to various leadership positions.  Damian Porcari, who led the office for five solid years, retired in 2023.
  • Several comment periods are still open at Regulations.Gov. Yesterday the period for comments closed on upcoming USPTO fee increases. At least 30 comments were submitted, including those from the AIPLA who “objects to the major policy shift wherein front-end fees are being added not only to recover aggregate costs, but change applicant behavior and implement significant policy changes, including large fee increases for claiming benefits of earlier effective filing dates, filing of Requests for Continued Examinations (“RCEs”), terminal disclaimer submissions, and for filing of large Information Disclosure Statements (“IDSs”).”  [This sentence was almost certainly written by a patent attorney.]

Recent Job Postings on Patently-O Jobs:

  • Van Pelt, Yi & James LLP is seeking local or remote patent engineers to prepare, file, and prosecute patent applications in the fields of computer science and electrical engineering. [Link]
  • Withrow + Terranova, PLLC is looking for an Associate Patent Attorney to work in Apex, NC (open to hybrid and remote arrangements) for patent application preparation and prosecution, client counseling, opinion work, and other related IP matters. [Link]
  • Epstein Becker & Green is seeking an intellectual property associate with at least three years of experience in patent prosecution within the life sciences industry to join their Columbus, Nashville, Pittsburgh, Portland, or Princeton office. [Link]
  • Viering, Jentschura & Partner mbB is seeking a U.S. patent attorney in either their Dresden or Munich office to draft and prosecute patent applications in the United States for various companies. [Link]
  • Dority & Manning is looking for an EE/CS Patent Attorney or Agent to draft and prosecute patent applications in their Raleigh-Durham, NC or Greenville, SC office. [Link]
  • Suiter Swantz IP has an immediate opening for a Patent Attorney or Patent Agent with 2-5 years of experience in their Omaha, NE office (remote considered). [Link]
  • Harrity & Harrity, LLP is seeking a patent professional to draft patent applications for leading global technology companies in software, computer, and electrical technology areas. The position is 100% remote. [Link]
  • The Marbury Law Group is seeking a highly motivated individual to join their Life Sciences team as a Pharma Associate in their Reston, VA, Boston, MA office or remote. [Link]
  • Ballard Spahr LLP is seeking an Electrical/Computer Engineering Patent Prosecution Associate with 2-4 years of experience to work in their Atlanta, Denver, Minneapolis or Phoenix office. [Link]
  • Ballard Spahr LLP is seeking a patent agent with 5+ years of patent prosecution experience to assist in prosecution, IP diligence, IP-transfer commercial transactions, and strategic IP business counseling in their Atlanta, New York, or Philadelphia office. [Link]
  • McNeill Baur is seeking experienced attorneys and agents with advanced degrees in Chemistry and at least 3 years of relevant experience in patent prosecution and/or patent counseling or patent litigation to work remotely. [Link]

Guest Post: Diversity Pilots Initiative Comment on Proposed Changes to PTAB Practice

Patent, , , , , , ,

Guest post by Ashton Woods, a JD candidate and member of the Juelsgaard Intellectual Property and Innovation Clinic at Stanford Law School. This post is part of a series by the Diversity Pilots Initiative, which advances inclusive innovation through rigorous research. DPI will be hosting its second conference at Emory University Law School in Atlanta on Friday, September 20, 2024. Indicate your interest by signing up here.

On February 21, the USPTO issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Expanding Opportunities to Appear Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and DPI filed one of seven comments on the proposal. DPI’s full comment can be found here.

Currently, parties appearing before the PTAB who are represented by counsel must designate lead and backup counsel. Lead counsel must be a USPTO-registered practitioner, meaning that they have technical training and have passed the registration exam (commonly known as the “patent bar” exam). Backup counsel may be non-registered if they are recognized pro hac vice. Under the Proposed Rule, counsel can switch roles, with a non-registered practitioner acting as lead counsel and a registered practitioner acting as backup counsel. Additionally, parties who can show good cause, including financial hardship, can waive the backup counsel requirement, though the party’s sole counsel must still be a registered practitioner. Finally, the Proposed Rule streamlines the pro hac vice recognition process for non-registered practitioners, though they still must be accompanied by a registered practitioner in the lead or backup role.

As explained in more detail in the full comment, DPI views the Proposed Rule as a modest step toward reducing the accessibility gap for potential patentees, patent practitioners, and patent challengers. The goal of the Proposed Rule is laudable, and it may provide a solid foundation for future efforts to diversify the Patent Bar and the patent system more broadly—if it can effectively expand the pool of eligible practitioners in proceedings before the PTAB, the Proposed Rule may support wider USPTO efforts to increase the participation of underrepresented communities in the innovation ecosystem.

Still, the Proposed Rule does not address all of the structural barriers within the patent system that continue to burden diversification efforts at the USPTO. Existing barriers, such as the technical training requirement and the patent bar exam, substantially narrow the class of patent practitioners. This is particularly troublesome considering that federal courts do not subject litigators to these standards—they impose no registration requirement or backup counsel requirement. Currently, there is no rigorous evidence to support these restrictions as necessary, rather than overly burdensome, in promoting competent, or even fantastic, representation before the PTAB.

DPI urges the USPTO to collect the empirical evidence necessary to ensure that USPTO initiatives are well-suited to promoting the goals of the Proposed Rule and the USPTO more broadly. The comment sets out exemplary data collection methods and key data points on PTAB filings and proceedings for the USPTO’s consideration. The comment urges the USPTO to affirmatively collect this data to rigorously assess the impact of the Proposed Rule, and other diversity initiatives, on inclusivity and accessibility at the USPTO.

DPI’s full comment on the USPTO’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Expanding Opportunities to Appear Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board can be found here. To stay informed about related work, sign up for DPI research updates by emailing diversitypilots@gmail.com.

 

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

Patent,

Talk about LKQ: I’m looking forward to joining Prof Sarah Burstein and others on Tuesday June 4 for an online panel discussion on the potential aftermath of the Federal Circuit’s major en banc design patent obviousness decision in LKQ v. GM.

In February 2024 we met along with Meredith Lowry (Wright Lindsey Jennings); Darrell Mottley (Howard University); and Laura Sheridan (Google) to give a preview of the case and we’re meeting again now to talk through where the pieces are falling.

Free event via Suffolk University Law School, but you need to register.  Noon Eastern Time, June 4, 2024.

Goodbye Rosen references, hello Jennings references?

Patent, , , , , , ,

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

Patent, , , , , , , , ,

[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 (more…)

The NYIPLA Brief: Advocating for Patent Term Adjustments

Patent, , , , , , , , ,

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). (more…)