The Business of Patents
Obviousness rejections are among the most, if not the most, frustrating rejections a patent applicant can face. The examiner typically assembles two or three old patents or published patent applications as prior art references, announces that a person of ordinary skill in the art (a “POSITA”) would have combined them, and then supplies a reason […]
Read more →For more than a decade, the most prevalent way to attack a patent outside of court has been the “inter partes review” (IPR) provided by the America Invents Act in 2012. That is changing quickly. As the USPTO has issued an increasing number of discretionary denials – refusing to institute an IPR without ever reaching […]
Read more →A recent Federal Circuit decision has settled the question of whether a patent can be invalidated under the America Invents Act for improper inventorship. The answer, the Court has now confirmed, is yes. In Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger Specialties, Inc., the Federal Circuit addressed whether a patent could be found invalid under 35 USC […]
Read more →The USPTO’s most recent guidelines (November 2025) concerning AI-assisted inventions may place the validity of patents at risk if the development of the claimed inventions relied heavily on AI tools. The guidelines also pose some perplexing questions about how much AI involvement is “too much” when inventing. Artificial intelligence tools are now part of the […]
Read more →On more than one occasion we have heard a client express surprise or frustration that the Patent Office issued one of their competitors a patent which seems invalid because it claims something known in the “prior art” or has some overly broad claims relative to the prior art. This can be especially frustrating if the client […]
Read more →In our experience, many clients are under the impression that the naming of inventors on a patent application is discretionary and that they can simply select whom they wish to name. We have seen situations where, for internal political reasons, someone wants to name or omit inventors. The listing of inventors on a U.S. […]
Read more →Many, if not most, patent infringement lawsuits involve a patent owner asserting that its claims cover accused products that differ from the specifically described embodiments in the patent at issue. Patent owners typically want their claims construed broadly by the court so that they “read on” or encompass the defendant’s accused products. Depending on the nature […]
Read more →In recent years, it has become increasingly difficult to patent computer-related inventions such as those concerning smart phone and web applications or even more specialized computer programs used in industry. The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been applying the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, […]
Read more →Companies often want to discuss some of their latest innovations at industry conferences to establish their technical prominence and build their brand. Inventors who are academics often want to describe their work to their peers to develop their reputations in their chosen fields. While such activities are commonplace, they need to be coordinated with patent […]
Read more →With the implementation of the America Invents Act (AIA), the United States went from a first to invent to a first inventor to file system of determining priority of patent rights. However, that was not all that changed with the implementation of the AIA. The AIA includes some significant changes to the on-sale bar which […]
Read more →When drafting patent claims for a device, it is often desirable to describe the device based on how it works instead of how it is structured. Describing a device based on how it works is often referred to as “functional claiming.” Claims that make use of functional claiming are frequently broader in scope than those […]
Read more →On May 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., (Case No. 13-896, May 26, 2015). A copy of the slip opinion may be found here. Active Inducement of Infringement: A Good Faith Belief in Invalidity is Not a Defense U.S. Patent Law recognizes both direct […]
Read more →