Our NEWS
Joint Inventorship – Understanding the Meat and Potatoes of Invention Contributions
- 07.17.2023
In a reversal of the district court’s decision, the Federal Circuit determined that an alleged inventor, who was not named in the patent application, did not qualify as a joint inventor. This was due to the alleged inventor’s contribution being deemed too insignificant when considered […]
KNOW MORE
Analogous References: the Same Field or Problem Domain as the Invention
- 06.16.2023
By Babak Akhlaghi on June 16, 2023 The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has overturned the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s determination of obviousness, stating that a prior art reference concerning automotive engine parts is not analogous to the challenged patent, which […]
KNOW MORE
The Grammar Secret: the Article “a” Still Signifies ‘One or More,’ but Requires a Single Component Executing All Functions”
- 05.02.2023
In Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC, the Federal Circuit held that the wording “a microprocessor” does not require there to be only one microprocessor in an open ended claim; however, subsequent limitations referring to “said microprocessor” require at least one microprocessor to be capable of […]
KNOW MORE
Navigating Uncharted Waters: Evaluating Patentability in Multiple Dependent Claims
- 02.24.2023
Nested Bean, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting inter partes review of claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,179,711 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ‘711 patent”). Claims 1 and 2 of the ‘711 patent are independent, and claims 3-16 are multiple dependent claims […]
KNOW MORE
Inventors Under the Patent Act
- 02.06.2023
In Thaler v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the Patent Act requires an “inventor” to be a natural person. The sole issue on appeal was whether an AI software system can be an inventor under […]
KNOW MORE
Disclaimer Don’t Stick in an IPR
- 01.04.2023
CUPP Computing AS (“CUPP”) appeals three inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) concluding that petitioner Trend Micro Inc. had shown challenged claims in CUPP’s U.S. Patents Nos. 8,631,488 (“’488 patent”), 9,106,683 (“’683 patent”), and 9,843,595 (“’595 patent”) unpatentable […]
KNOW MORE
Common Law Collateral Estoppel Applies to Board’s decisions
- 03.08.2021
In SYNQOR, INC., v. VICOR CORPORATION, No. 19-1704 (Feb. 22, 2021), the Court held that common law collateral estoppel, also know as issue preclusion, applies to Board’s decisions in inter partes reexaminations. The ‘190 patent issued July 4, 2006, with a family of patents that […]
KNOW MORE
The Sole Test for Anticipation in Design Patents is the “Ordinary Observer Test”
- 02.25.2021
In MOJAVE DESERT HOLDINGS, LLC, v. CROCS, INC., No. 20-1167 (Feb. 18, 2021), the Court upheld the Board’s finding that the prior art reference failing to show key surfaces in the asserted design patent cannot anticipate it. Crocs owned U.S. Patent No. D517,789 (the ‘798 […]
KNOW MORE
USPS Seeks a Patent for a Blockchain-Based Mail-in Voting System
- 12.03.2020
The United States Postal Service (“USPS”) is seeking a patent protection for a more secure vote by mail system. In its recent patent publication, the USPS describes that its voting system is secured by using a blockchain to record data regarding the mailed in votes […]
KNOW MORE
One Key Lesson from Dropbox Losing on 3 Key Patents
- 10.08.2020
In Dropbox Inc., Ornicus Holdings, LLC v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc., No. 19-1765 (Fed. Cir., Jun 19, 2020), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard an appeal on patent eligibility of three patents, providing a non-precedential but insightful opinion on proper construction of […]
KNOW MORE