-
2 months ago | 
ipwatchdog.com | Randall R Rader |Eileen McDermott
IPWatchdog LIVE Moves to March in 2025: Click for details “On the one hand, [DOGE’s] current primary tools… need some accommodation to grasp the unique aspects of the USPTO.
-
Jun 28, 2024 | 
ipwatchdog.com | Eileen McDermott |Bruce Berman |Randall R Rader
“Today, the Court places a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss.” – Justice Gorsuch, concurringThe U.S. Supreme Court today issued its opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, overruling the Court’s seminal case on administrative agency deference, Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court and Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson dissented. In the 1984 ruling in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v.
-
Jun 27, 2024 | 
ipwatchdog.com | Eileen McDermott |Bruce Berman |Randall R Rader |Steve Brachmann
“While the RFC is interested in how the experimental use exception applies to all technology areas, it provided the example of agriculture as one area that could benefit from greater clarity on experimental use.” The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a draft Request for Comments (RFC) today seeking public feedback “on the current state of the experimental use exception jurisprudence and whether legislative action should be considered to enact a statutory experimental use...
-
Jun 26, 2024 | 
ipwatchdog.com | Randall R Rader
“On one thing all commentaries agree: this ruling will make it more difficult to protect designs. No surprise here.”A few weeks ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit undertook to clarify the obviousness standards for design patents. LKQ Corp. v. GM Glob. Tech. Operations LLC, __ F.4th__, No. 2021-2348, 2024 WL 2280728 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2024). After many breathless commentaries, the record needs at least one expression of the “obvious”: this judicial effort utterly failed.
-
May 28, 2024 | 
ipwatchdog.com | Tobias Wuttke |Wolfgang Flasche |Randall R Rader
“Recent decisions by the EPO’s Boards of Appeal again underscore the strict enforcement of Article 123 (2) to maintain the high standard it defined for added matter and original disclosure.”The European Patent Office’s (EPO) Boards of Appeal have displayed a stringent approach towards added subject matter in recent decisions, particularly in comparison to other jurisdictions.
-
May 28, 2024 | 
ipwatchdog.com | Stephen Schreiner |Brad Close |Randall R Rader
“When making oral argument, listen for judges that may be steering your argument into one of these pitfalls. Don’t take the bait.” Part I of this article discussed how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is a very different tribunal from district courts. It is a venue where fact and issues of law are decided by technical specialists, who are also highly trained in patent law, instead of lay judges and juries.
-
May 27, 2024 | 
ipwatchdog.com | Randall R Rader
“In addition to learning proper labels, modern antitrust authorities would exhibit great wisdom by abandoning any residual prejudice against the exclusive rights authorized by the U.S. Constitution.” Despite the basic principles that a patent does not presume market power and does establish plenary legality within its issued scope, as we learned in Part I of this two-part series, the Federal Trade Commission can and has used threats of antitrust inquiries to coerce patent owners to...
-
May 24, 2024 | 
ipwatchdog.com | Eileen McDermott |Randall R Rader |Megan K Bannigan |Anna Rennich
“On appeal to the CAFC, the court explained that, while the Luca McDermott trust did have Article III standing to bring the appeal, it did not have standing to bring the cancellation action.”The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday, May 23, affirmed a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decision that found a party with only a minority ownership interest in the owner of allegedly infringed marks did not have standing to seek cancellation of the marks.
-
May 23, 2024 | 
ipwatchdog.com | Randall R Rader |Eileen McDermott
“A patent expands, rather than contracts, the public domain; operates as a legal incentive to expand the market, far from illegal market-restrictive monopolistic conduct; and enhances instead of endangers competition.”The simple answer is “no”; a patent protecting a new and nonobvious invention is not an antitrust monopoly.
-
Apr 2, 2024 | 
ipwatchdog.com | Eileen McDermott |Emma Mann |Brittany Reeves |Randall R Rader
“Ficep said that, since the High Court declined in Alice ‘to delimit the precise contours of the ‘abstract ideas’ category’…the ability to secure patents in the ‘useful arts’ has not just eroded but become a panel- dependent game of chance.’”The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, April 1, dismissed a petition asking the Court to revisit and clarify its seminal holding in Alice v. CLS Bank.
