Patent – Patently-O https://patentlyo.com America's leading patent law blog Wed, 15 Aug 2018 12:29:23 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.8 McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP https://patentlyo.com/media/2014/01/mbhb-3b.gif https://www.mbhb.com/ 480 150 Intellectual Property Law Teaching a Result vs Guaranteeing a Result https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/teaching-result-guaranteeing.html https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/teaching-result-guaranteeing.html#comments Tue, 14 Aug 2018 18:06:07 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=24119 Teaching a Result vs Guaranteeing a Result

In re Facebook (Fed. Cir. 2018) (nonprecedential opinion)

Facebook’s U.S. Patent Application No. 13/715,636 claims a method for displaying a set of images after reshuffling or resizing the images.  The Examiner rejected Claim 1 (below) as anticipated; and that rejection was affirmed by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  Now on appeal, the Federal Circuit has reversed and remanded — finding that the USPTO had too loosely interpreted the prior art.

The claimed image rendering process begins with a sequence of images. Each image is assigned a “first position” within an “array of contiguous image elements” — in other words, the images are put in a particular order.  When a user adjusts the position or size of an image — there may be a need for reshuffling of the images into “second positions.”  The claimed method includes a requirement that the reshuffled sequence “be contiguous.” — i.e., no gaps in the array.

Notice the reshuffle above that occurred from 1A to 1B when a user resized image 130.

The claims expressly require that the reshuffle retain contiguity.  The problem for the PTO is that the identified prior art (Perrodin) did not require contiguity “in all cases.”   The court wrote:

Nothing about Perrodin’s algorithm required contiguity.

Continue reading Teaching a Result vs Guaranteeing a Result at Patently-O.

]]>
Teaching a Result vs Guaranteeing a Result

In re Facebook (Fed. Cir. 2018) (nonprecedential opinion)

Facebook’s U.S. Patent Application No. 13/715,636 claims a method for displaying a set of images after reshuffling or resizing the images.  The Examiner rejected Claim 1 (below) as anticipated; and that rejection was affirmed by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  Now on appeal, the Federal Circuit has reversed and remanded — finding that the USPTO had too loosely interpreted the prior art.

The claimed image rendering process begins with a sequence of images. Each image is assigned a “first position” within an “array of contiguous image elements” — in other words, the images are put in a particular order.  When a user adjusts the position or size of an image — there may be a need for reshuffling of the images into “second positions.”  The claimed method includes a requirement that the reshuffled sequence “be contiguous.” — i.e., no gaps in the array.

Notice the reshuffle above that occurred from 1A to 1B when a user resized image 130.

The claims expressly require that the reshuffle retain contiguity.  The problem for the PTO is that the identified prior art (Perrodin) did not require contiguity “in all cases.”   The court wrote:

Nothing about Perrodin’s algorithm required contiguity. It is true that the example depicted in Figures 18 and 19 happened to result in contiguity. But that cannot represent a general rule that would demand contiguity for all images, as required by the claims here. . . . Perrodin’s algorithm could not guarantee contiguity.

So, we have a situation here where the prior art teaches contiguity-after-reshuffle, but is also open to situations where a reshuffle might result in non-contiguity.  The claims – on the other hand – include “a rule requiring [contiguity].”  Since the prior art does not include the rule requiring contiguity, it cannot anticipate.

The court here did not discuss obviousness because the PTO had conceded that “the anticipation and obviousness rejections rise and fall together.”

= = = = =

Claim 1 of the Facebook application reads as follows:

1. A method comprising:

by a computing device, determining a sequence of image elements;

by the computing device, determining, for each image element in the sequence, a first position in an array of contiguous image elements, the first position being based on a size of the image element, an order of the image element in the sequence, and dimensions of the array;

by a computing device, determining, in response to an instruction to adjust the position or size of a first image element, a second position in the array for at least one second image element, the second position determined based on a rule requiring the image elements to be contiguous such that each available image position between the first image element in the sequence and the last image element in the sequence is occupied by an image element; and

by the computing device, providing information to render the array of contiguous image elements.

]]>
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/teaching-result-guaranteeing.html/feed 34
Coming Soon: Annual Bar Dues and CLE Requirements https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/coming-annual-requirements.html https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/coming-annual-requirements.html#comments Mon, 13 Aug 2018 17:52:46 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=24110 Coming Soon: Annual Bar Dues and CLE Requirements

The USPTO has quietly proposed adding new annual bar dues ($240 – $410) for patent practitioners as well a continuing legal education (CLE) requirement.  The proposal is buried in the Table of Proposed Fees that will serve as the basis for an upcoming September 6, 2018 PPAC meeting on fees.

The Agency has not yet released any other information regarding the proposal. However, the suggestion from the fee requirement here is that the CLE requirement would only be a “soft” requirement — if you complete the CLE then the Annual Active Patent Practitioner Fee would be reduced.  The USPTO previously proposed annual fees back in 2003.

Continue reading Coming Soon: Annual Bar Dues and CLE Requirements at Patently-O.

]]>
Coming Soon: Annual Bar Dues and CLE Requirements

The USPTO has quietly proposed adding new annual bar dues ($240 – $410) for patent practitioners as well a continuing legal education (CLE) requirement.  The proposal is buried in the Table of Proposed Fees that will serve as the basis for an upcoming September 6, 2018 PPAC meeting on fees.

The Agency has not yet released any other information regarding the proposal. However, the suggestion from the fee requirement here is that the CLE requirement would only be a “soft” requirement — if you complete the CLE then the Annual Active Patent Practitioner Fee would be reduced.  The USPTO previously proposed annual fees back in 2003.

]]>
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/coming-annual-requirements.html/feed 24
Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/patently-o-bits-and-bytes-by-juvan-bonni-7.html https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/patently-o-bits-and-bytes-by-juvan-bonni-7.html#respond Mon, 13 Aug 2018 16:04:58 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=24101 Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

Recent Headlines in the IP World:

  • Kevin Kelleher: Apple Sought a Patent for Putting Augmented Reality on Car Windshields (Source: Fortune)
  • Tasneem Akolawala: Samsung Galaxy S10’s Rumoured Ultrasonic Fingerprint Scanner Detailed in New Patent (Source: Gadgets 360)
  • Natalie Gagliordi: Arista to Pay Cisco $400 Million in Patent Settlement (Source: ZD Net)
  • Susan Decker: Sensors to Smartphones Bring Patent Wars to Diabetes Monitoring (Source: Bloomberg)
  • Atty David Holland, Atty Roger Lush, and Atty Melanie Stevenson: International report – UKIPO Helps to Clarify the Future UK-EU Relationship on Intellectual Property (Source: IAM)
  • Tom Pritchard: Apple Could Let You Store Your Passport on an iPhone (Source: Gizmodo UK)

Commentary and Journal Articles:

  • Andrew Rossow: How Can We Make Intellectual Property Rights ‘Smarter’ With The Blockchain? (Source: Forbes)
  • Prof. Noam Sher: One Rule to Compensate Them All (Source: SSRN)
  • Prof. Daryl Lim: Agribiotech Patents in the Food Supply Chain: A U.S. Perspective (Source: SSRN)
  • Christian F. Chessman: iSpeak: Automated Authorship and Accountability in the Digital Age (Source: SSRN)

New Job Postings on Patently-O:

  • Okada Patent And Trademark Office P.C.

Continue reading Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni at Patently-O.

]]>
Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

Recent Headlines in the IP World:

Commentary and Journal Articles:

New Job Postings on Patently-O:

]]>
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/patently-o-bits-and-bytes-by-juvan-bonni-7.html/feed 0
Rejoining Written Description and Enablement in Amgen v. Sanofi https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/rejoining-description-enablement.html https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/rejoining-description-enablement.html#comments Fri, 10 Aug 2018 00:16:07 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=24091 Rejoining Written Description and Enablement in Amgen v. Sanofi

by Dennis Crouch

In July 2018, Amgen filed its petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court to reject the Federal Circuit’s imposition of separate “written description” and “enablement” requirements along with their various requirements and standards.  Amgen argues that the Court should simply follow the statute — requiring “a written description of the invention . . . in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains . . . to make and use the same.”  Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, SCT Docket No. 18-127 (Petition filed July 23, 2018) (Cert Petition).

The basic push here is against the “possession” standard that serves as the core of the Federal Circuit’s written description requirement.  Apart from any policy arguments — Amgen argues that the statute spells out the test — and it is enablement, not possession.  Rather than focusing on what the inventor possesses, the Act requires the specification simple teach others — “as to enable an person skilled in the art . . . to make and use” the invention.

The brief provides a statutory linguistic argument that makes sense — the “grammatical structure [is] inescapable” and shows that statute provides one standard for judging the written description — the enablement standard.

Continue reading Rejoining Written Description and Enablement in Amgen v. Sanofi at Patently-O.

]]>
Rejoining Written Description and Enablement in Amgen v. Sanofi

by Dennis Crouch

In July 2018, Amgen filed its petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court to reject the Federal Circuit’s imposition of separate “written description” and “enablement” requirements along with their various requirements and standards.  Amgen argues that the Court should simply follow the statute — requiring “a written description of the invention . . . in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains . . . to make and use the same.”  Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, SCT Docket No. 18-127 (Petition filed July 23, 2018) (Cert Petition).

The basic push here is against the “possession” standard that serves as the core of the Federal Circuit’s written description requirement.  Apart from any policy arguments — Amgen argues that the statute spells out the test — and it is enablement, not possession.  Rather than focusing on what the inventor possesses, the Act requires the specification simple teach others — “as to enable an person skilled in the art . . . to make and use” the invention.

The brief provides a statutory linguistic argument that makes sense — the “grammatical structure [is] inescapable” and shows that statute provides one standard for judging the written description — the enablement standard.

This statutory argument goes a long way, but in my view will lack compelling force to the Supreme Court (as it did for the Federal Circuit in Ariad).  Rather, for 112(a), historical cases are the key since the language of 112(a) all stems directly from the Patent Act of 1793.  A grammar diagram (seemingly based upon modern language usage) is a rather weak argument for interpreting this olde language.  Rather, a successful argument here should seen in light of the history of the statute and how it has been directly addressed by the Supreme Court over the past 225 years.  In Ariad, the Supreme Court looked particularly to the Supreme Court decision in Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co., 305 U.S. 47 (1938) as recognizing a separate written description (possession) requirement that goes beyond mere enablement.  Although the cert petition repeatedly cites Schriber-Schroth it doesn’t actually address the portion relied upon by the Federal Circuit that served as the crux of its decision.

 

]]>
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/rejoining-description-enablement.html/feed 179
Takings: A Costly Screen for IPRs. https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/takings-costly-screen.html https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/takings-costly-screen.html#comments Wed, 08 Aug 2018 16:26:18 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=24088 by Dennis Crouch

In Oil States, the patentee lost its broad challenge to the AIA Post Issuance trial system. However the majority opinion penned by Justice Thomas hinted that other collateral attacks on the system could find more success.  Particularly, the court wrote that “our decision [finding that patents are public rights] should not be misconstrued as suggesting that patents are not property for purposes of the Due Process Clause or the Takings Clause.”

A Costly Screen: The takings clause is an interesting limit on government power. Rather than serving as an absolute limit, the clause creates a costly screen.  Although the government has power to take private property for public use, it is required to provide “just compensation” for every such taking.  “[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” U.S. Const. 5th Amendment (1791).

If the government cancels my land ownership rights to instead create a public commons — the takings clause would require just compensation.  Imagine for a moment that the PTO’s cancellation of established patent rights is also categorized as a taking — the PTO would need to provide just compensation to the patentee. 

Continue reading Takings: A Costly Screen for IPRs. at Patently-O.

]]>
by Dennis Crouch

In Oil States, the patentee lost its broad challenge to the AIA Post Issuance trial system. However the majority opinion penned by Justice Thomas hinted that other collateral attacks on the system could find more success.  Particularly, the court wrote that “our decision [finding that patents are public rights] should not be misconstrued as suggesting that patents are not property for purposes of the Due Process Clause or the Takings Clause.”

A Costly Screen: The takings clause is an interesting limit on government power. Rather than serving as an absolute limit, the clause creates a costly screen.  Although the government has power to take private property for public use, it is required to provide “just compensation” for every such taking.  “[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” U.S. Const. 5th Amendment (1791).

If the government cancels my land ownership rights to instead create a public commons — the takings clause would require just compensation.  Imagine for a moment that the PTO’s cancellation of established patent rights is also categorized as a taking — the PTO would need to provide just compensation to the patentee.  The question now being raised in various cases — including the recent petition in Advanced Audio Devices, LLC v. HTC Corp.

One starting point: It is certainly a taking for the government to cancel patent rights in merely because it wants to use the invention or to give the public free access to the invention.  IPRs also involve cancelling patent rights.  However, in IPRs the patents are cancelled based upon a different justification — a non-patentability determination rather than merely a desire for unfettered public use of the invention.  The question though is whether this different justification will serve as a cognizable distinction.

The Advanced Audio petition adds the additional twist that its patents were filed pre-AIA.  Thus, the patentee asks the following question:

Whether inter partes review (“IPR”) of patents filed before enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

[Advanced Audio Devices SCOTUS Cert Petition (Final)].  Similar arguments are being raised in other cases, including the class action Christy v. USA.

Just Compensation for Cancelling My Patent

]]>
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/takings-costly-screen.html/feed 99
Put it Into Hyperdrive: New Car https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/put-into-hyperdrive.html https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/put-into-hyperdrive.html#comments Tue, 07 Aug 2018 20:40:39 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=24077 Put it Into Hyperdrive: New Car

by Dennis Crouch

I just bought my first electric car – 2018 Honda Clarity.  Love it.  I should say that it is not fully electric — rather it is a PHEV (Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle).  When fully charged, the car goes about 50 miles on battery — then becomes a hybrid vehicle once the battery juice is spent.  Since we generally drive less than 50 miles per day, the car has used almost no gasoline — although the engine will kick-in as a support at times when you need extra power.

The dual power vehicle system has been the subject of lots of patent litigation stemming from Paice LLC’s enforcement of its U.S. Patent Nos. 7,237,634 and 8,214,097.  The Paice inventor, Alex Severinsky, claims to have invented the “hyperdrive power-amplified internal combustion engine power train” that uses a variety of metrics to determine whether to use the Battery, the Engine, or Both Simultaneously.

Back to my new Clarity.  I tend to be fairly slow to change cars – until last week I was still driving my 1998 Honda Civic from law school days.

In addition to the “Severenski hyperdrive” possibilities — I’m also enamored with the fact that I’ll only be stopping at the gas station when taking a road trip. 

Continue reading Put it Into Hyperdrive: New Car at Patently-O.

]]>
Put it Into Hyperdrive: New Car

by Dennis Crouch

I just bought my first electric car – 2018 Honda Clarity.  Love it.  I should say that it is not fully electric — rather it is a PHEV (Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle).  When fully charged, the car goes about 50 miles on battery — then becomes a hybrid vehicle once the battery juice is spent.  Since we generally drive less than 50 miles per day, the car has used almost no gasoline — although the engine will kick-in as a support at times when you need extra power.

The dual power vehicle system has been the subject of lots of patent litigation stemming from Paice LLC’s enforcement of its U.S. Patent Nos. 7,237,634 and 8,214,097.  The Paice inventor, Alex Severinsky, claims to have invented the “hyperdrive power-amplified internal combustion engine power train” that uses a variety of metrics to determine whether to use the Battery, the Engine, or Both Simultaneously.

Back to my new Clarity.  I tend to be fairly slow to change cars – until last week I was still driving my 1998 Honda Civic from law school days.

In addition to the “Severenski hyperdrive” possibilities — I’m also enamored with the fact that I’ll only be stopping at the gas station when taking a road trip.  In general, electric motors are more efficient than gas engines. Electricity production tends to have a better environmental impact than burning gas, and the zero exhaust in my garage is really nice.  For this battery size, the car fully charges in about 6 hours with my ordinary 110 power supply.

I had been eyeing other PHEV’s such as Volvo’s XC90 or the Porsche Cayenne. However, those vehicles have a much lower electric-only range and are well beyond my law-professor-salary range.  In addition to being much cheaper, the Clarity also qualifies the buyer for a $7,500 federal tax credit.

Finally, I’ll note that the Clarity is my first electric car — but not my first electric vehicle.  I still ride my Volton eBike to the law school several days each week (depending on the weather).

 

 

]]>
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/put-into-hyperdrive.html/feed 20
Standing on Appeal: Being a Competitor with ongoing Product Development Not Sufficient for IPR Appellate Standing https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/competitor-development-sufficient.html https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/competitor-development-sufficient.html#comments Mon, 06 Aug 2018 02:16:22 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=24074 Standing on Appeal: Being a Competitor with ongoing Product Development Not Sufficient for IPR Appellate Standing

JTEKT Corp. v. GKN Auto (Fed. Cir. 2018)

GKN’s Patent No. 8,215,440 covers a 2wd/4wd dual drivetrain.  This general type of drivetrain was already well known in the automotive industry — and the claims of the patent appear to my eyes to be quite broadly written.

JTEKT (a subsidiary of Toyota) makes automotive components.  Although JTEKT does not yet have a competing product on the market, saw the ‘440 patent as a major roadblock and filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding — asking the USPTO to cancel the patent claims. During the IPR, GKN disclaimed the broadest claims — and the PTO confirmed the validity of the remaining claims. (The key limitation appears to be that the system coupling is “without a differential gearing”.)

On appeal the Federal Circuit has refused to hear the case — finding that the case lacked Constitutional standing since JTEKT had not alleged any “actual injury.”  The case here follows Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc., 845 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  In that case the patent challenger Phigenix was not planning to actually use the Immunogen patent, but argued its injury was based upon the competitive advantage that the patent gave to its owner. 

Continue reading Standing on Appeal: Being a Competitor with ongoing Product Development Not Sufficient for IPR Appellate Standing at Patently-O.

]]>
Standing on Appeal: Being a Competitor with ongoing Product Development Not Sufficient for IPR Appellate Standing

JTEKT Corp. v. GKN Auto (Fed. Cir. 2018)

GKN’s Patent No. 8,215,440 covers a 2wd/4wd dual drivetrain.  This general type of drivetrain was already well known in the automotive industry — and the claims of the patent appear to my eyes to be quite broadly written.

JTEKT (a subsidiary of Toyota) makes automotive components.  Although JTEKT does not yet have a competing product on the market, saw the ‘440 patent as a major roadblock and filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding — asking the USPTO to cancel the patent claims. During the IPR, GKN disclaimed the broadest claims — and the PTO confirmed the validity of the remaining claims. (The key limitation appears to be that the system coupling is “without a differential gearing”.)

On appeal the Federal Circuit has refused to hear the case — finding that the case lacked Constitutional standing since JTEKT had not alleged any “actual injury.”  The case here follows Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc., 845 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2017).  In that case the patent challenger Phigenix was not planning to actually use the Immunogen patent, but argued its injury was based upon the competitive advantage that the patent gave to its owner.  Although that injury might be sufficient for standing purposes — the Federal Circuit still dismissed the case because Phigenix failed to present sufficient facts to make the injury plausible.

Standing is an oddball with IPRs.  Anyone can file an IPR request and the USPTO will consider that request.  The Patent Act directly states that a losing petitioner has a right to appeal if it loses the IPR.  (A party “who is dissatisfied with the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board . . . may appeal the Board’s decision . . . to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.” 35 U.S.C. § 141(c).) Still, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Constitution requires an actual controversy between the parties — and that the Article III courts cannot offer advisory opinions. A particular element in question for appellate IPR standing is injury-in-fact —  “an injury that is both ‘concrete and particularized.’” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016)(non-IPR case).

In ordinary lawsuits, this sort of standing is established at the lower court level. Here, however, it must be done at the appellate level (since the PTO doesn’t worry about the issue).  On appeal, JTEKT was given an opportunity to provide evidence of injury-in-fact – but failed:

While JTEKT has submitted two declarations in support of its standing, JTEKT’s problem is that these declarations do not establish that its planned product would create a substantial risk of infringing [the particular claims on appeal] or likely lead to charges of infringement.

Appeal dismissed.

Note here – Folks interested in this issue should consider the pending Supreme Court petition in RPX Corporation v. ChanBond LLC (SCT Docket No. 17-2346).

]]>
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/competitor-development-sufficient.html/feed 30
Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/patently-o-bits-and-bytes-by-juvan-bonni-6.html https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/patently-o-bits-and-bytes-by-juvan-bonni-6.html#respond Sun, 05 Aug 2018 22:08:10 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=24067 Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

Recent Headlines in the IP World:

  • Kanishka Singh and Rishika Chatterjee: Apple Owes Canadian Patent Company US$145.1 million in Damages for Infringement (Source: Global News)
  • Ana Alexandre: Recent Walmart Patent Application Describes Blockchain-Managed Smart Appliances (Source: Coin Telegraph)
  • Jon Chesto: Senate Approves Legislation to Crack Down on ‘Patent Trolls’ (Source: The Boston Globe)
  • Chuong Nguyen: Apple Patent Application a Trio of Ideas to Fix its MacBook Keyboard (Source: Digital Trends)

 

  • Mayank Parmar: Microsoft Patent Applications an Interesting Dual-Screen Device with Focus on Scanning and OS Navigation (Source: Windows Latest)

Commentary and Journal Articles:

  • Atty. Krista Cox: The Minority Gender Patent Gap (Source: Above the Law)
  • Jeff McDowell: How Your Employees Can – And Must – Protect Intellectual Property (The Globe and Mail)
  • Stephen Vines: As Kit Kat, Starbucks and Posh Spice Rulings Show, Intellectual Property is Big but Bittersweet Business (Source: South Morning China Post)
  • Shekh Abdullah-Al-Musa Ahmed: Intellectual Property and Principles of IPR in Bangladesh (Source: SSRN)

New Job Postings on Patently-O:

  • Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP
  • H.C.

Continue reading Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni at Patently-O.

]]>
Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

Recent Headlines in the IP World:

 

Commentary and Journal Articles:

New Job Postings on Patently-O:

 

]]>
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/patently-o-bits-and-bytes-by-juvan-bonni-6.html/feed 0
Updates from USPTO Public Meeting from Aug 2, 2018 https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/updates-from-uspto-public-meeting-from-aug-2-2018.html https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/updates-from-uspto-public-meeting-from-aug-2-2018.html#comments Thu, 02 Aug 2018 19:12:58 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=24049 Updates from USPTO Public Meeting from Aug 2, 2018

By Dennis Crouch

(1) Under Dir. Iancu, the USPTO appears to be moving away from eligibility rejections. The chart below shows that the past year about 8% of all examiner rejections were eligibility rejections. Over the past three months, that statistic has dropped to about 6.6%. During that time, the PTO has officially changed its approach via the Berkheimer memo, and Dir. Iancu’s leadership lends authority to the Office’s approach to broader eligibility.

(2) AIA Trial institution rates continue to fall – although slightly. Post-Grant Review proceedings are not becoming popular. Several hundred patents have been subjected to multiple (3+) petitions challenging validity.

(3) Although I am not clear how this will happen, the USPTO expects that its spending and revenue will level out perfectly by the end of the fiscal year.

(4) Several bills are pending in Congress. None are currently likely to pass.

(5) Draft of 2018-2022 USPTO Strategic Plan to be released later in August.

(6) USPTO AI Conference set for December 5th, 2018, USPTO Madison Auditorium.

Continue reading Updates from USPTO Public Meeting from Aug 2, 2018 at Patently-O.

]]>
Updates from USPTO Public Meeting from Aug 2, 2018

By Dennis Crouch

(1) Under Dir. Iancu, the USPTO appears to be moving away from eligibility rejections. The chart below shows that the past year about 8% of all examiner rejections were eligibility rejections. Over the past three months, that statistic has dropped to about 6.6%. During that time, the PTO has officially changed its approach via the Berkheimer memo, and Dir. Iancu’s leadership lends authority to the Office’s approach to broader eligibility.

(2) AIA Trial institution rates continue to fall – although slightly. Post-Grant Review proceedings are not becoming popular. Several hundred patents have been subjected to multiple (3+) petitions challenging validity.

(3) Although I am not clear how this will happen, the USPTO expects that its spending and revenue will level out perfectly by the end of the fiscal year.

(4) Several bills are pending in Congress. None are currently likely to pass.

(5) Draft of 2018-2022 USPTO Strategic Plan to be released later in August.

(6) USPTO AI Conference set for December 5th, 2018, USPTO Madison Auditorium.

]]>
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/updates-from-uspto-public-meeting-from-aug-2-2018.html/feed 94
PTO: Patent Quality Chat and Fee Setting https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/patent-quality-setting.html https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/patent-quality-setting.html#comments Wed, 01 Aug 2018 19:11:02 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=24033 Upcoming PTO Events in at the HQ in Arlington:

  1. August 2, 2018 (9 am to 3 pm ET): PPAC Meeting [Webcast]
  2. August 14, 2018 (Noon to 1 pm ET): Patent Quality Chat: AIA Trial Statistics from PTAB and Using AIA Trials to Enhance Patent Examination
  3. September 6, 2018 (9 am to 11 am ET): PPAC discussion of New FEES. 

USPTO is planning to exercise its fee setting authority to set or adjust patent fees. As part of the rulemaking proceeding for the issuance of regulations under Section 10, the USPTO will publish a proposed patent fee schedule and related supplementary information for public viewing no later than August 29, 2018.

Continue reading PTO: Patent Quality Chat and Fee Setting at Patently-O.

]]>
Upcoming PTO Events in at the HQ in Arlington:

  1. August 2, 2018 (9 am to 3 pm ET): PPAC Meeting [Webcast]
  2. August 14, 2018 (Noon to 1 pm ET): Patent Quality Chat: AIA Trial Statistics from PTAB and Using AIA Trials to Enhance Patent Examination
  3. September 6, 2018 (9 am to 11 am ET): PPAC discussion of New FEES. 

USPTO is planning to exercise its fee setting authority to set or adjust patent fees. As part of the rulemaking proceeding for the issuance of regulations under Section 10, the USPTO will publish a proposed patent fee schedule and related supplementary information for public viewing no later than August 29, 2018.

]]>
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/08/patent-quality-setting.html/feed 7