Tag Archives: USPTO

Old Dog, New Tricks: Government Defends 200-Year-Old ODP Doctrine Even Under Modern Statutes

Patent, , , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

The debate over obviousness type double patenting continues.  Most recently, the U.S. Government has filed its brief in opposition to certiorari in Cellect v. Vidal. 

In its decision, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Congressionally mandated "patent term guarantee" that adjusts patent term to account for undue USPTO delay (known as PTA) triggers a risk that a later-expiring patent will be invalidated due to obviousness-type double  patenting (ODP). The Government brief consistently defends and agrees with the CAFC's decision -- arguing primarily (1) that ODP is an ancient patent tradition (much like eligibility) and (2) applying ODP to PTA is supported by the statute.

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

Apple v. Vidal: APA Compliance in IPR Discretionary Denial Rules

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

by Dennis Crouch

I have written several times about the Chestek case regarding notice-and-comment requirements under the APA.  A second notice-and-comment case is also pending before the Federal Circuit, potentially having a much greater impact on patent practice.  The case, Apple v. Vidal, focuses on IPR discretionary denials, which the USPTO implemented as policy without any formal rulemaking notice-and-comment.

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

Federal Circuit Slices the Bologna Thin with IPR Rehearing Waiver Decision

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

by Dennis Crouch

Voice Tech Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2022-2163 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2024)

Unified Patents is paid by its members to fight against non-practicing entity (NPE) patent assertions -- often by challenge patent validity via inter partes review.  In this case, Unified challenged Voice Tech's U.S. Patent No. 10,491,679 which covers technology for controlling a computer via a mobile device using voice commands. At the conclusion of the IPR, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) sided with Unified - finding all challenged claims (1-8) of the '679 patent unpatentable as obvious over the combination of two prior art references, Wong and Beauregard.  The PTAB also denied Voice Tech's request for rehearing. On appeal, the patentee won a minor battle on waiver, but ultimately lost on the merits.

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

Obtaining vs. Maintaining: How SoftView v. Apple Reshapes Patentee Estoppel

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

by Dennis Crouch

This is our second discussion of collateral estoppel in as many days.  Yesterday I wrote about Koss v. Bose, a case where the Federal Circuit concluded that a district court's final judgment of invalidity had a preclusive effect on USPTO IPR analysis -- rendering the patentee Koss's appeal moot.   Today's focus is on SoftView v. Apple, and a focus on the USPTO's estoppel regulations as they apply between an IPR and reexamination proceeding. Case No 23-1005 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2024).

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

A few initial thoughts on Loper Bright and the end of Chevron Deference

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

by Dennis Crouch

This is just a first look at how overturning Chevron may impact patent practice. 

In the past, both the USPTO and patent attorneys have largely ignored the larger scope of administrative law, but in recent years USPTO operations have been under tighter control from the White House, and courts have increasingly asked whether the agency is following the rules.  Administrative patent law was truly launched with  the American Invents Act of 2011 and the resulting administrative patent trials by the PTAB -- resulting in hundreds of appeals arguing that the USPTO's procedural approach is an abuse of administrative power.  Importantly, the Supreme Court in Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Com. for Intell. Prop., 579 U.S. 261 (2016) provided the patent office with Chevron deference for its determinations regarding AIA trials, including issues such as its approach to claim construction.  But Chevron has now been overruled, and many are wanting the Federal Circuit to revisit the USPTO approach.

Although I expect that the outcome

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

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.

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

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

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

USPTO Adapts to CAFC’s New Guidelines: What Design Patent Examiners Need to Know

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

by Dennis Crouch

On May 22, 2024, the day after the Federal Circuit's en banc LKQ v. GM decision, the USPTO issued a memorandum to its examiners providing updated guidance and examination instructions in light of the court's overturning of the long-standing Rosen-Durling test for determining obviousness of design patents. The memo, signed by USPTO Director Kathi Vidal, aims to immediately align USPTO practices with the more flexible approach outlined by the Federal Circuit, which eliminated the rigid requirements that: (1) a primary reference be "basically the same" as the claimed design, and (2) secondary references be "so related" to the primary reference that features in one would suggest application to the other.  This is a major shift in examination practice for design patents so it will be important to watch the developments to see whether the office ramps up design examination.

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.

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.

New USPTO Director Review Rules

Patent, , , , , ,

by Dennis Crouch

The USPTO has published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to formalize the process for Director Review of PTAB decisions. These proposed rules come in response to the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021), which underscored the necessity for the USPTO Director to have the ability to review PTAB decisions to comply with the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  Of course, the USPTO has been operating under an interim procedure for Director Review that began soon after Arthrex, but has been updated a couple of times.  The NPRM closely follows the most recent version of the interim rules.

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

Supreme Court Holds Over Two Patent Cases, Considers Two More on Patent Eligibility

Patent, , , , , , , , , ,

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:

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

Importance of Due Diligence for Patent Practitioners and the US/China Economic War

Patent, , , , , , , , , ,

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:

  1. 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
  2. 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.

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