Tag Archives: patent law

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

Patent, , , , , , , , ,

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

Patent, , , , , , ,

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.

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

Patent, , , , , , , ,

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.

USPTO ARP Panel Restores MPF Sanity, but Still Rejects Xencor’s Claims

Patent, , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

In a new Appeals Review Panel (ARP), the USPTO has clarified the Office's position on means plus function claims -- explaining that the specification need not describe statutory equivalents to satisfy the written description requirement.  The outcome here shows value for the intentional use of means-plus-function limitations as a mechanism for expanding patent scope when genus claims are otherwise unavailable.

Still the court maintained the written description rejection on other grounds -- finding that the broad preamble "method of treating a patient" to be limiting and not adequately supported by the specification.  Perhaps on remand the patentee will amend the preamble to instead claim a "means of treating a patient." 

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

Navigating the USPTO’s Regulatory Wave: Key Comment Deadlines for Summer 2024

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

by Dennis Crouch

Over the past two months, the USPTO has issued an unusually large number of public comment requests related to various proposed rules and procedure changes. This wave of RFCs includes significant proposals aimed at adjusting patent fees for fiscal year 2025, refining terminal disclaimer practices, and addressing the impact of artificial intelligence on prior art and patentability. The agency is also seeking feedback on formalizing the Director Review process following Arthrex and various changes to IPR proceedings, including discretionary review. And there's more...

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

The Legacy of A.B. Dick and Motion Picture Patents: How these 100+ Year Old Ruling Reshaped Patent Law

Patent, , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

I see the US Supreme Court's 1912 decision in Henry v. A.B. Dick Co. as a major turning point in American patent and antitrust law. 224 U.S. 1 (1912).  The Court's 4-3 decision favored the patentee and allowed the patent owner to place restrictions on the use of its patented product even after sale. But, that decision sparked a major reform effort.  Just a few years later, the Supreme Court reversed course in Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243 U.S. 502 (1917), effectively overruling A.B. Dick and signaling a new largely anti-patent-monopoly era.

In A.B. Dick,

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

Terminal Disclaimers: A Growing Concern in Patent Practice

Patent, , , , , ,


by Dennis Crouch

In a recent post, I discussed major proposed changes to terminal disclaimer practice that could significantly impact the landscape of patent law. Today, I want to briefly note a trend that underscores why these proposed changes are more pertinent than ever: the increasing percentage of U.S. utility patents bound by a terminal disclaimer.

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

Major Proposed Changes to Terminal Disclaimer Practice (and You are Not Going to Like it)

Patent, , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

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.  Under the proposed rule, a terminal disclaimer must include an agreement that the patent will be unenforceable if it is 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). The new enforceability requirement would be in addition to the existing provisions that require a terminal disclaimer to match the expiration date of the disclaimed patent to the referenced patent and promise enforcement only during common ownership.

This is a major proposal that fundamentally alters the effect of terminal disclaimers. 

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

Eolas Seeks Supreme Court Review of Federal Circuit’s Patent Eligibility Decision

Patent, , , , , ,

Eolas is seeking a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court -- hoping that the court will overturn the Federal Circuit's decision invalidating its distributed computing (WWW) claims as ineligible under Alice Corp. and Mayo and ostensibly under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The petition presents three key questions:

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

Post-Default Creditor’s Right to Assign, License and Enforce Patent does not Disturb Patentee’s Separate Right to Sue Infringers

Patent, , , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

The Federal Circuit's new decision in Intellectual Tech LLC v. Zebra Techs. Corp., No. 2022-2207 (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2024) offers some interesting insight into leveraged patent transactions, and the effect of a lender's ability to license or assign a patent on the patent owner's standing to sue for infringement, especially after default.

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

Discerning Signal from Noise: Navigating the Flood of AI-Generated Prior Art

Patent, , , , , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

This article explores the impact of Generative AI on prior art and potential revisions to patent examination standards to address the rising tidal wave of AI-generated, often speculative, disclosures that could undermine the patent system's integrity.


The core task of patent examination is identifying quality prior art.  References must be sufficiently accessible, clear, and enabling to serve as legitimate evidence of what was previously known.  Although documents are widely available today via our vast network of digital communications, there is also increasing junk in the system -- documents making unsubstantiated claims that are effectively science fiction.  Patent offices prefer patent documents as prior art because they are drafted to meet the strict enablement standards and filed with sworn veracity statements. Issued patents take this a step further with their imprimatur of issuance via successful examination.  Many of us learned a mantra that "a prior art reference is only good for what it discloses" -- but in our expanding world of deep fakes, intentional and otherwise, is face value still worth much?

In a new request for comments (RFC), the USPTO has asked the public to weigh in on these issues -- particularly focusing on the impact of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) on prior art.

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

Ikorongo Challenges Federal Circuit’s Heightened “Same Invention” Requirement for Reissue Patents

Patent, , , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

Ikorongo Technology has filed a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court to overturn the Federal Circuit's heightened disclosure standard for the "same invention" requirement in reissue patents. The petitioner argues that the Federal Circuit's test, established in Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma Inc., 771 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014), directly contradicts the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. Industrial Chemicals, Inc. v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp., 315 U.S. 668 (1942). Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Ikorongo Tech. LLC v. Bumble Trading LLC, No. 23-1118 (U.S. Apr. 2024).

Reissue has long been a part of the U.S. Patent system, and today's guiding statute (35 U.S.C. 251) looks substantially the same as that enacted back in 1836.  The basic idea is that a defective patent can be "surrendered" and a new patent issued "for the same invention." 

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

The Non-Compete Ban: Impact on Patenting and Challenging Implementation

Patent, , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

Non-compete agreements fly under the radar for most American lawyers.  One reason is that such restrictions have long been banned within legal practice. As an example, the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rule 5.6(a) prohibits lawyers from entering into agreements that restrict their right to practice law after terminating an employment, partnership, or other professional relationship. The rule's stated aim is to protect clients' freedom to choose their legal representation, but it also ensures that lawyers can practice their profession without restriction.

The increasing prevalence of non-compete agreements in other industries has drawn increasing scrutiny from policymakers and regulators, leading to the FTC's recent rule banning most non-compete agreements across the United States.  The new rule was announced on April 23, 2024 following a 3-2 vote by the FTC Commissioners (along party lines, with Democrats in the majority). It is set to take effect 120 days later (August 21, 2024). As I discuss below, two lawsuits have already been filed seeking to derail implementation.

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

Without Undue Experimentation vs Without Any Experiments

Patent, , , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

I was rereading the Supreme Court's recent enablement decision of Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 598 U.S. 594 (2023) and was struck by the Supreme Court's statement that its 19th Century decision of Wood v. Underhill, 46 U.S. 1 (1847) "establish[ed] that a specification may call for a reasonable amount of experimentation to make and use a patented invention."  This statement from Amgen is surprising because Chief Justice Taney's decision in Wood includes a seemingly contrary statement that bars any experimentation

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

What is Next for Enablement and Written Description of Antibody Claims?

Patent, , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

I had been following the case of Teva v. Lilly for a few years.  Teva has traditionally been a generic manufacturer, but in this case sued Eli Lilly for infringing its patents covering methods of treating headache disorders like migraine using humanized antibodies that bind to and antagonize calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), a protein associated with migraine pain. U.S. Patent Nos. 8,586,045, 9,884,907 and 9,884,908.  The patents cover Teva's drug Ajovy, and allegedly cover Lilly's Emgality. Both drugs were approved by the FDA in September 2018.  A Massachusetts jury sided with Teva and awarded $177 million in damages, including a controversial future-lost-profit award.

Although the jury sided with Teva, District Judge Allison Burroughs rejected the verdict and instead concluded that Teva's patent claims were invalid as a matter of law for lacking

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

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Vanda’s Patent Obviousness Appeal

Patent, , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

The Supreme Court has denied Vanda Pharmaceuticals' petition for certiorari, leaving in place a Federal Circuit decision that invalidated Vanda's patents on methods of using the sleep disorder drug Hetlioz (tasimelteon) as obvious.

Vanda had argued in its cert petition that

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

Seeking Clarity on Comparison Prior Art: Seirus Petitions Supreme Court in Heat Wave Design Patent Dispute

Patent, , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

Seirus has petitioned for writ of certiorari in its long-running design patent dispute with Columbia Sportswear.  The petition asks two questions related to the comparison process for design patent infringement -- in particular, the questions focus on what can qualify as "comparison prior art" used to provide context for the infringement analysis.

Questions presented:

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

Codifying Discretionary Denial of IPR Petitions

Patent, , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

The USPTO recently released yet another Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) -- this one focusing on codification of IPR/PGR rules associated with non-merits based "discretionary denials" of institution as well as termination due to settlement.  This is a controversial area because of that word 'discretion.'  Unrestricted discretion by government officials is concerning because of the potential for arbitrary or biased decisions, lacking transparency and accountability.  In that frame, these rules are beneficial because they structure and limit discretion - hopefully making the outcomes more predictable and justifiable.  A key note - the rules here focus primarily on procedure (separate briefing for discretionary denials) and substantive issues relating to parallel, serial, and cumulative petitions. Although this is an important step, they do not address discretionary denials associated with parallel litigation (or other outside factors) under Fintiv and subsequent director guidance. This is likely the most controversial area of discretionary denials that is being left out for now.

Congress clearly intended the USPTO to have substantial discretion

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