The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced on March 31, 2020 that certain patent and trademark filing and payment deadlines have been extended in response to delays caused by the COVID-19 outbreak.
In these unforeseen and unique circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, we want to keep our clients abreast of how patent and trademark offices around the world are handling deadlines and other issues.
Adding another tool to intellectual property owners’ arsenal for combatting infringing products, Amazon has launched a pilot program to efficiently identify and resolve third-party patent infringement on the Amazon marketplace.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit released a ruling earlier this month that affirmed a District Court decision that certain medical diagnostic claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,267,820 (the '820 patent) were invalid.
Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. v. Cepheid, No. 2017-1690 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 9, 2018) (Roche), marks yet another decision from the Federal Circuit affirming invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §101 of diagnostic claims.
In E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V., the Federal Circuit recently reversed a finding of non-obviousness in an inter partes review (IPR) decision issued by the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (board).
A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit changes the landscape for defendants in patent infringement cases, and in certain circumstances may limit their ability to challenge a plaintiff’s patent using the inter partes review (IPR) proceeding established in 2012.
Currently, to maintain or renew a United States trademark registration, the registrant must file a Declaration of Use stating the mark is in use in commerce in connection with each listed good or service in the registration.
On appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and vacated-in-part the board’s decision in two related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings that Petitioner, Medtronic, Inc., failed to establish obviousness of the claims in U.S. Patent No. 7,670,358 (the ’358 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 7,776,072 (the ’072 Patent). The Federal Circuit held that the board erred in concluding that a video and a binder containing relevant portions of certain slides, which were distributed at various programs in 2003, are not prior art on the grounds that the video and slides were not sufficiently accessible to the public. The Court asserted that the board failed to consider all of the relevant factors in determining whether or not the video and slides are a printed publication within the meaning of 35 USC § 102.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed a Federal Circuit decision dealing with patent damages for lost sales in foreign jurisdictions. WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp., 586 U.S. ____ (June 22, 2018), Case No. 16-1011 (Thomas J). The Court concluded that U.S. patent owners can get damages from overseas sales lost through infringement.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (the office) recently issued guidance on the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent decision SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu on post-grant patent proceedings, specifically inter partes review.
Intellectual property (IP) attorneys (both in-house and outside counsel) are increasingly turning to outsourcing and offshoring to complete many patent-related tasks, such as prior art searches, patent drafting, formalizing patent drawings, and general patent prosecution.