Shaping the Future of Patent Law: The Amgen v. Sanofi Decision and Bite-Sized Monopolies
Assessing Judicial Fitness: Judge Newman’s Alleged Cognitive Decline
Streamlining the Qualification Process: Key Changes to the USPTO Patent Practitioner Registration
A New Horizon: Design Patent Practitioner Bar Proposed by USPTO
Certiorari Denied in Eligibility Cases
Judicial Disability and the “Great Dissenter”
Petitioner’s Failure to Argue that Prior Art was Analogous to Challenged Patent Results in Reversal of IPR Decision
Judge Newman vs. Chief Judge Moore
Comments on USPTO Proposed Fee Changes
Can States Legislate in the AI Rights Space?
Attorney Fees on Undecided Inequitable Conduct Issues
by Dennis Crouch
United Cannabis Corp (UCANN) vs. Pure Hemp Collective, --- F.4th --- (Fed. Cir. 2023)
The UCANN vs. Pure Hemp patent case has come to a close with the Federal Circuit affirming the district court's decision to deny attorney fees to Pure Hemp. The original infringement lawsuit was filed in 2018, with UCANN suing Pure Hemp for infringing US Patent No. 9,730,911, covering various high concentration cannabis and CBD extract formulations. During the litigation, UCANN filed for bankruptcy, causing the case to be stayed, and eventually, the parties stipulated to a dismissal of the infringement claims with prejudice. However, the stipulated dismissal did not include any discussion of attorney fees -- leading to the current appeal.
Following the dismissal, Pure Hemp moved for attorney fees and sanctions, arguing that UCANN's counsel committed inequitable conduct during patent prosecution and that UCANN's litigation counsel had a conflict of interest. The district court sided with UCANN and denied attorney fees, stating (1) that Pure Hemp was not the prevailing party and (2) that Pure Hemp did not prove that the case was exceptional. The Federal Circuit has now affirmed the decision, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the case unexceptional. Although district court the district court erred in not finding Pure Hemp to be the prevailing party, the error was harmless.
An API for the Human Mind
Generative AI and Copyright
Bringing Home the Bacon with Joint Inventorship
The Supreme Court and Patent Protection for Medical Diagnostics: A Closer Look at CareDx and Stanford U v. Eurofins
Supreme Court Holds Over Two Patent Cases, Considers Two More on Patent Eligibility
by Dennis Crouch
On May 1, the U.S. Supreme Court revealed its decisions from the April 28 conference. Among the three patent cases considered, the court denied certiorari for the pro se case of Wakefield v. Blackboard, while holding over the other two for reconsideration at a later conference. This development increases the likelihood of these two cases being heard by the court, although a grant of certiorari has not yet been announced.
The held-over cases include:
Professional Liability risks of filing in DOCX
Establishing Guidelines for Patent Damages: The Garretson v. Clark Case of 1884
Importance of Due Diligence for Patent Practitioners and the US/China Economic War
by Dennis Crouch
37 C.F.R. § 11.18(b) imposes crucial responsibilities on patent applicants, attorneys, and agents. Documents submitted to the USPTO implicitly certify that:
- Statements made are true or are are believed to be true (based upon information and belief) and do not include any attempt to conceal a material fact; and
- That a reasonable inquiry was conducted to confirm that: (i) statements have no improper purposes, (ii) legal contentions are supported by existing law or valid arguments for change, (iii) allegations and factual contentions have or are likely to have evidentiary support, and (iv) denials of factual contentions are based on evidence or a reasonable lack of information or belief.
Recent USPTO disciplinary cases underscore the seriousness of these obligations. Examples include filing a micro entity status request without proper investigation and submitting an information disclosure statement (IDS) by a non-practitioner without practitioner review. Rubber stamping is not permitted.
