Intellectual Property

New guidance issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, focusing on AI and other software-related emerging technologies.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s elimination of “Chevron deference” in the Loper decision, many commentators have suggested that the ITC’s authority over unfair imports under Section 337 might be curtailed.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued an important update to its guidance on patent subject matter eligibility.

This case is a victory for public figures and their control over their personal branding. Applicants for trademark registration must continue to get clearance before incurring the significant cost of registration when using a living person’s name. While this decision is likely to have minimal impact on most trademark filings, it does come as part of a larger trend of the Court’s willingness to address longstanding provisions of the Lanham Act. And should Justice Barrett’s prophesy come to pass, this may not be the last word on content-based, view-point neutral restrictions. 

Late last month, the Supreme Court issued two opinions which seemingly shook up the field of administrative law.  As explained in this article, however, while both decisions bear significantly on certain administrative agencies, neither of these decisions are likely to present significant changes to Section 337 practice at the International Trade Commission. 

On May 29, 2024, the Western District of Oklahoma in SIPCO, LLC v. JASCO Prods. Co. dismissed the plaintiff SIPCO’s patent infringement claims against defendant JASCO because of a minor typo made by the USPTO during prosecution.

Last week, Sun Patent Trust sued Xiaomi in France for infringement of patents claimed to be essential to the LTE-Advanced standard. In its suit, Sun Patent Trust asked French courts to set a global FRAND rate—something that has never occurred before. 

Blockchain is becoming central to more FinTech patent portfolios than ever – but it’s harder to obtain protection on blockchain than most other technologies. The US Supreme Court’s decision in Alice v. CLS Bank (2014) strengthened limits on what subject matter is eligible for patent protection under 35. U.S.C. §101. 

To stay or to go (from the docket)? For decades, federal courts of appeal have disagreed on a fundamental procedural question: when a dispute filed in federal district court is subject to arbitration, should the court dismiss the action or stay it pending the outcome of the arbitration? 

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued a pivotal guidance document, effective April 11, on the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools within patent and trademark practices.

To date, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has not held a trial involving standard-essential patents (SEPs). However, the new forum’s Mannheim Local Division has now authored its first SEP-specific order in a case between Panasonic and Xiaomi. 

On April 17, 2024, a second Texas jury assessed damages of $142 million against Samsung, more than doubling a previous jury award of $67.5 in a protracted standard essential patent (SEP) litigation brought by G+ Communications. 

Where an alleged infringer administers a substance A to a subject, and the substance is subsequently transformed to a therapeutic agent X inside the subject’s body, does the administration of the substance A constitute an act of infringement of a patent claiming a method of treatment by administration of the therapeutic agent X?

In a precedential opinion issued on April 11, 2024 in Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Norwich Pharmaceuticals Inc., Nos. 22-2153, 23-1952, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s decision holding claims directed to polymorphic form “β” of rifaximin invalid as obvious. 

Filing a continuation application from a parent patent is an implicit admission that obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) applies to the resulting continuation patent.  A Terminal Disclaimer in the continuation patent over the parent patent is thus necessary to avoid the public policy concerns underlying ODP.