Filewrapper

Judicial and Executive Branches split over Subject Matter, New Legislation may be Coming

Earlier this month the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) heard another appeal in the Cleveland Clinic v. True Health cases. In their appeal, one of Cleveland Clinic’s arguments that their claims were valid was because Skidmore deference should apply to the Examiner’s decision to allow the application to issue in light […]

Continue Reading →

Resolving Circuit Splits: Supreme Court Addresses Issues Regarding Legal Fees

By Blog Staff

On March 4, 2019, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Iancu v. NantKwest, Inc. to settle the debate over what “all the expenses” means under the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) win-or-lose attorney fee policy. This controversial policy involves seeking attorneys’ fees from applicants, regardless of the outcome of a case. During […]

Continue Reading →

Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo Collaborative Services Part 1, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Inconsistencies

Part 1 of the review of Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo Collaborative will look at how the Majority Opinion is at odds with precedent and the most recent United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) Subject Matter Guidelines published last month. Part 2 will look at the dissent from Judge Newman and how it fits better […]

Continue Reading →

Jury Orders Mongols Motorcycle Club to Forfeit Trademark

By Brandon W. Clark

The Mongols Nation motorcycle club was recently convicted of violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) resulting in a California federal jury ordering the motorcycle club to forfeit its trademarked logo based on links between the image and the criminal activities carried out by the group. The imagine incorporates the motorcycle club’s […]

Continue Reading →

USPTO Updates 112 Guidance: Presumption Shift of Functional Limitations

Recently, the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced plans to update their guidance on functional claim language under 112 and will after a period of public input. This update will likely require a more detailed specification for functional claims or result in narrower claims. Under the proposed 112 guidelines, which are aimed […]

Continue Reading →

USPTO Updates 101 Guidance: Making Abstract More Concrete

Recently the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced plans to update their guidance on 101 issues and will do so after a period of public input in order to increase clarity during prosecution. This update will replace, not just update, several sections of MPEP 2106. The update will also provide practitioners a […]

Continue Reading →

2018 Farm Act has important IP Implications

By Heidi S. Nebel

At long last, the 2018 Farm bill has been approved by Congress and forwarded to the President for signature. As I blogged earlier, the bill has important Intellectual Property Implications. The first is that it adds PVP protection for asexually reproduced plants. The  addition will allow asexually reproduced plants, which are now protectable under the […]

Continue Reading →

CRISPR: Broad Institute Holds onto its Piece of Pie, and it’s Delicious!

On Monday, September 10th, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) upheld the decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on the interference between the Broad Institute and the University of California. The PTAB held, and the CAFC upheld, that given the difference between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells, one skilled in […]

Continue Reading →

USPTO Director Andrei Lancu Takes a Look at Early Prosecution

This week, the USPTO Director, Andrei Iancu, testified before the House Judiciary Committee. In his written statement Director Iancu wrote on topics related to early prosecution that would result in lower costs to clients and would speed up the process of obtaining a patent. A new pilot program that will allow for a pre-search Examiner […]

Continue Reading →

Inter Partes Review Proceedings (IPRs) Do Not Violate Article III of the Constitution per U.S. Supreme Court

By Jonathan L. Kennedy

The U.S. Supreme held in a 7-2 decision (Justice Gorsuch and Chief Justice Roberts dissenting), Oil States Energy Servs. V. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, that the Inter Partes Review proceedings, commonly referred to as IPRs, do not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment. The Court was deciding two primary constitutional challenges: (1) whether IPRs violate […]

Continue Reading →

Stay in Touch

Receive the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Sign Up