by Dennis Crouch

In an unprecedented move, the Secretary of Commerce is terminating all current appointments to the Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) and Trademark Public Advisory Committee (TPAC), effectively removing the entire membership of both committees.  New members will apparently be appointed shortly, with the USPTO planning to proceed with previously scheduled public committee meetings in May 2025.  The statute requires that "any vacancy on an Advisory Committee shall be filled within 90 days after it occurs."

Although my memory is sometimes faulty, I believe that this is the first time in the committees' 25 year history that an incoming presidential administration has dismissed all members.  The dismissed PPAC includes Loletta Darde, Earl Bright, Henry Hadad, Lateef Mtima, Marvin J. Slepian, Olivia Tsai, Maria Anderson, Idris McKelvey, and Jennifer Yokoyama.  The last three of these were appointed in January 2025 -- making them immediately suspect to the new administration seeking to make dramatic departures from approaches taken by President Biden's administration.  In general, this group was all put in place under President Biden and  would have likely been a contentious group to deal with -- potentially authoring negative reports and asking difficult questions.

The new committees will be more friendly to the new administration, but my hope is that they will still be able to provide independent guidance and counsel to the USPTO Director. The effectiveness of these advisory committees has always depended on their ability to bring diverse perspectives and constructive criticism to USPTO operations, rather than simply rubber-stamping agency decisions. While political alignment with the administration may facilitate communication, the value here is really derived from member expertise, connection to practice, and willingness to challenge assumptions when necessary.

by Dennis Crouch

I'm delivering a U.S. patent law year-in-review for the past year or so.  Here are Nine of the topics that deserve some focus.

1. The New USPTO under President Trump: The greatest ongoing issue is the about-face from President Trump to President Biden. The ultimate direction and outcome will become more clear as we move through 2025, but there have already been dramatic shifts, especially focused on workforce RTO and RIF and elimination of non-core USPTO activities. Meanwhile backlog is growing again.

2. The Only Federal Circuit En Banc Decision – LKQ v. GM: Shifts in design patent obviousness analysis moving away from the Rosen-Durling test toward the more flexible KSR standard.  We'll talk through how the USPTO is responding; global expansion of design rights; and the 20% rise in design patents in 2024 (while also having a growing backlog).

The Federal Circuit recently heard oral arguments in the much-anticipated en banc review of EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, a case focusing on how courts evaluate expert testimony on patent damages.  And, in particular, when a court should step-in to bar expert testimony that does not have sufficient factual basis for its conclusions.  The arguments focused on whether EcoFactor's damages expert improperly derived royalty rates from license agreements that contained performative non-binding "whereas" clauses stating EcoFactor's belief about rates, while the operative provisions specified lump-sum payments.  It seems clear to me that these provisions were added as elements of the patentee's smaller license agreements in order to later be used in larger cases, such as the one against Google.

Judge Alan Albright (W.D.Tex.) admitted testimony from EcoFactor's damages expert, David Kennedy, who derived a per-unit royalty rate from three prior EcoFactor settlement agreements to calculate a $20 million damages award against Google for infringing EcoFactor's smart thermostat patent, U.S. Patent 8,738,327.

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.