You searched for Patent design | Page 2 of 36

Results for "Patent design"

Precedential shift: USPTO clarifies patentability of AI training methods

by Hannah Hurley | Nov 20, 2025 | Patents

On November 4, 2025, the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) designated as precedential an appeals review panel (ARP) decision vacating the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s § 101 rejection of claims directed to training machine learning models. Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 24-000567 (ARP Sept. 26, 2025) (precedential).

The Board had previously concluded that claims covering continual learning techniques (such as adjusting model parameters to maintain performance across sequential tasks) were directed to an unpatentable abstract idea. The ARP, which included the USPTO Director, reversed that determination, holding that the claims integrated the abstract concept into a practical application by improving the functioning of machine learning models themselves. However, the ARP still rejected the claims under § 103 for obviousness.

Key takeaways

Technical improvements matter. Artificial intelligence (AI)-related inventions can satisfy Alice Step 2A when they demonstrate technical improvements, such as mitigating catastrophic forgetting and reducing storage complexity.
No blanket exclusion. The opinion cautions against categorically excluding AI innovations under § 101 and emphasizes that §§ 102, 103, and 112 remain the proper tools for assessing patent scope.
Precedential impact. The decision signals the USPTO’s commitment to aligning examination practices with US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit precedent while fostering innovation in AI and machine learning.

Practice note: For applicants, this precedential designation underscores the importance of framing AI-related claims around specific technical improvements rather than abstract concepts, which can be pivotal in overcoming § 101 challenges.

Feel the burn: Mechanical improvement is patent eligible under § 101

by Dexter Hamilton | Aug 21, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s partial dismissal of the plaintiff’s patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, finding that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea under Alice step one. PowerBlock Holdings, Inc. v. iFit, Inc., Case No. 24-1177 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 11, 2025) (Taranto, Stoll, Scarsi, JJ.)

PowerBlock sued iFit for allegedly infringing its patent related to dumbbells. IFit moved to dismiss the claims under § 101. The district court found that the challenged claim was broadly directed to the idea of automated weight stacking, and that it purported to cover any system having a few basic components for selecting and adjusting weights, rather than describing a specific method or design for how the system actually worked. Applying the Supreme Court’s two-step framework for determining patent eligibility, the district court determined that all but one claim of the asserted patent were ineligible under § 101. PowerBlock appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that the district court erred in its Alice step one analysis under § 101. The Court explained that the crux of the district court’s incorrect determination was that the challenged claim was directed to the abstract idea of automated weight stacking, which in turn led to misplaced preemption concerns. The Court found instead that the claim was limited to a specific implementation of a technological improvement – namely, a particular type of selectorized dumbbell featuring nested left and right weight plates, a handle, a movable selector, and an electric motor operatively connected to the selector that adjusts the weight based on user input.

Distinguishing the challenged claim from prior cases in which claims were found ineligible, the Federal Circuit emphasized that the claim was directed to an “eligible mechanical invention” and “focused on a specific mechanical improvement,” not merely an abstract or generalized concept. The Court also rejected iFit’s argument that limitations should be discounted simply because they appear in the prior art. The Court reiterated that it is inappropriate to dissect claims into old and new elements and then ignore the old when assessing eligibility under § 101. Rather, under Alice, the “step one inquiry involves consideration of the claims ‘in their entirety to ascertain whether their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” The Court cautioned against conflating the patent eligibility inquiry under § 101 with the separate questions of novelty and nonobviousness under §§ 102 and 103.

Designated Informative: PTO Director Declines IPR Institution Following District Court § 101 Invalidation

by Jodi Benassi | May 15, 2025 | Patents

The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) designated a recent Director Review decision as informative, signaling its significance for future proceedings. The decision emphasizes that a final district court ruling invalidating a patent weighs heavily against instituting inter partes review (IPR) under the Fintiv framework, reinforcing the agency’s stance on minimizing duplicative litigation. Hulu LLC v. Piranha Media Distribution LLC, IPR2024-01252; -01253 (PTAB Director Review Apr. 17, 2025) (Stewart, PTO Dir.)

Piranha requested Director Review of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s decision granting institution of two IPRs filed by Hulu. Piranha argued that the decision should be reversed and the IPRs denied institution, citing a district court final judgment invalidating the challenged claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 issued before the institution decision was made. Hulu argued that Director Review was unwarranted.

In the district court litigation, Piranha asserted that Hulu infringed claims from two patents related to integration of advertising content into digital media streams. Hulu moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the asserted patents were ineligible for patenting under § 101. The district court determined that the asserted claims were directed to the abstract idea of “displaying an advertisement in exchange for access to copyrighted material, as well as the abstract idea of receiving, organizing, and displaying data,” and contained no inventive concept. The district court granted Hulu’s motion to dismiss and held the claims patent ineligible and therefore invalid under § 101.

The Director explained that since a district court had already ruled the patent claims invalid, launching separate IPRs to assess their patentability on other grounds was unnecessary. The Director noted that if the Federal Circuit overturned the district court’s decision, Hulu could still pursue its invalidity arguments during remand proceedings. Declining to institute review was the more efficient and practical path under the circumstances, the Director said.

While the Board applied the Fintiv framework in its institution decision, the Director observed that the framework does not align neatly with the facts of this case, where a final district court judgment under § 101 preceded the Board’s decision. The Director ultimately concluded that a second review proceeding was unwarranted given the claims’ current invalid status.

Broadcast Alert! Applying Conventional Machine Learning to New Data Isn’t Patent Eligible

by Jodi Benassi | Apr 24, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that patents applying established machine learning methods to new data are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. et al., Case No. 23-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025) (Dyk, Prost, Goldberg, JJ.)

Recentive sued Fox, alleging infringement of four patents designed to tackle long-standing challenges in the entertainment industry – namely, optimizing the scheduling of live events and refining “network maps,” which determine the content aired on specific channels across various geographic markets at set times. These patents aim to streamline broadcast operations and enhance programming efficiency.

The patents at issue can be divided into two categories: network maps and machine learning training. The machine learning training patents focus on generating optimized event schedules by training machine learning models with parameters such as venue availability, ticket prices, performer fees, and other relevant factors. The network map patents describe methods for dynamically generating network maps that assign live events to television stations across different geographic regions. These methods utilize machine learning to optimize television ratings by mapping events to stations and updating the network map in real time based on changes to the schedule or underlying criteria. The patents’ specifications explain that the methods employ “any suitable machine learning technique” using generic computing machines.

Fox moved to dismiss on the grounds that the patents were subject matter ineligible under § 101. Recentive acknowledged that the concept of preparing network maps had existed for a long time. Recentive also recognized that the patents did not claim the machine learning technique. Nonetheless, Recentive argued that its patents claimed eligible subject matter because they involve using machine learning to generate custom algorithms based on training the machine learning model. Recentive characterized its patents as introducing “the application of machine learning models to the unsophisticated, and equally niche, prior art field of generating network maps for broadcasting live events and live event schedules.”

The district court disagreed and granted Fox’s motion. Applying the Alice framework, at step one, the court determined that the asserted claims were “directed to the abstract ideas of producing network maps and event schedules, respectively, using known generic mathematical techniques.” At step two, the court determined that the machine learning limitations were no more than “broad, functionally described, well-known techniques” that claimed “only generic and conventional computing devices.” The court denied Recentive’s request for leave to amend because it determined that any amendment would be futile. Recentive appealed.

For the Federal Circuit, this case presented a question of first impression: whether claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment are patent eligible.

Step One

While Recentive claimed that its machine learning approach was uniquely dynamic and capable of uncovering hidden patterns in real time, the Federal Circuit found these features to be merely standard aspects of how machine learning operates. The Court explained that iterative training and model updates are not [...]

Continue Reading

What a Croc! False Claim That Product Feature Is Patented Can Give Rise to Lanham Act Violation

by Karen Gover | Oct 17, 2024 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a grant of summary judgment on a false advertising claim, concluding that a cause of action under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act can arise when a party falsely claims to hold a patent on a product feature and advertises that feature in a misleading way. Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., Case No. 2022-2160 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2024) (Reyna, Cunningham, JJ.; Albright, District J., sitting by designation).

Crocs, the well-known maker of molded foam footwear, sued several competitor shoe distributors for patent infringement in 2006. The case was stayed pending an action before the International Trade Commission but resumed in 2012 when Croc added competitor U.S.A. Dawgs as a defendant to the district court litigation. The case was stayed twice more, from 2012 to 2016 and 2018 to 2020. In between those stays, in May 2016, Dawgs filed a counterclaim against Crocs and 18 of its current and former officers and directors, alleging false advertising violations of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). The individual defendants were later dismissed from the action.

Dawgs claimed that Crocs deceived consumers and damaged its competitors by falsely describing its molded footwear material, which it calls “Croslite,” as “patented,” “proprietary,” and “exclusive.” Dawgs alleged that it was damaged by Crocs’ false advertisements and commercial misrepresentations because Crocs suggested that its competitors’ footwear material was inferior. Croslite is in fact not patented, as Crocs conceded.

Crocs argued in its motion for summary judgment that Dawgs failed as a matter of law to state a cause of action under Section 43(a) because the alleged advertising statements were directed to a false designation of authorship of the shoe products and not to their nature, characteristics, or qualities, as Section 43(a)(1)(B) requires. The district court agreed. Applying the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. and the Federal Circuit’s 2009 decision in Baden Sports, Inc. v. Molten USA, Inc., the district court granted summary judgment to Crocs. It reasoned that falsely claiming to have “patented” something is similar to a false claim of authorship or inventorship, not to the types of false advertising prohibited by the Lanham Act. Dawgs appealed.

Dawgs argued that the district court’s application of Dastar and Baden to the circumstances of its case was inapposite, and the Federal Circuit agreed. In Dastar, the petitioner copied a television series in the public domain, made minor changes, and sold it as a video set, passing it off as its own. The Supreme Court held that a false claim of authorship does not give rise to a cause of action under the Lanham Act. Similarly, in Baden, the Federal Circuit found that a basketball manufacturer’s false suggestion that it was the author of the “innovative” “dual-cushion technology” in its basketballs did not give rise to a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act.

In this case, however, the Federal Circuit reasoned that Croc’s false [...]

Continue Reading

PTO Collaborates With UK Counterpart to Address Standard-Essential Patents

by Thomas DaMario | Jun 13, 2024 | Patents

On June 3, 2024, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Director Kathi Vidal and Chief Executive Officer of the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) Adam Williams signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) designed to tackle various issues related to standard-essential patents (SEPs).

SEPs are patents that have been declared essential to a particular technical standard. Common examples of technical standards with active SEP bases include cellular communication and other wireless standards, such as LTE, 5G and Wi-Fi. Standards are typically adopted by Standard Setting Organizations (SSOs). To have input on standard adoption, many SSOs require participants agree to license any patents that result from discussions with potential licensees on Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms (See e.g., ETSI Intellectual Property Rights Policy).

But what are FRAND terms, and who gets to decide whether they issue? While individual patents are territorial (e.g., a US-issued patent is only enforceable in the United States), patent owners often obtain patent coverage in multiple jurisdictions. This can lead to challenges wherein a court in one jurisdiction may determine FRAND terms for a patent in that jurisdiction, which may then set or significantly influence the FRAND rate for the patent owner’s corresponding patents in other jurisdictions.

While the MOU is not public at this time, the PTO indicated that the MOU sets forth a framework for the following action items:

Cooperate on activities to facilitate collaboration and exchange of information on policy matters concerning SEPs to better ensure a balanced standards ecosystem.
Explore means to educate small- and medium-sized enterprises seeking to implement or contribute to the development of technical interoperability standards on FRAND terms.
Examine ways of improving transparency in the FRAND licensing of technical interoperability standards.
Engage in outreach to stakeholders to raise awareness of issues related to SEPs.
Discuss means to incorporate additional jurisdictions into the PTO and IPO’s activities concerning SEPs, including exploring a venue for broader discussions.

The agreement remains in place through June 3, 2029. PTO Director Vidal emphasized that “[t]his important collaboration with UKIPO will help us work together toward a fair and balanced international standard essential patent ecosystem that benefits all businesses in our two countries, including small and medium-sized enterprises and new market entrants.”

ITC Shines Light on DI: Complainant Can’t Aggregate Investments Across Patents, Prongs

by Alexander P. Ott | Apr 11, 2024 | Patents

Addressing a determination by its chief administrative law judge (CALJ) finding a violation of § 337, the US International Trade Commission reversed and held that the complainant had not satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry (DI) requirement by aggregating its investment across multiple asserted patents. Certain Replacement Automotive Lamps (II), Case No. 337-TA-1292 (USITC Mar. 22, 2024).

In late 2021, Hyundai filed a complaint seeking an investigation under 19 U.S.C. § 337 based on alleged infringement of 21 design patents, each covering a different automotive headlamp or taillamp. In response, two of the proposed respondents filed a request seeking early disposition of the economic prong of the domestic industry under the Commission’s 100-day program. Hyundai filed a response opposing the 100-day program request based on the complexity of the issues. The Commission instituted the investigation and denied the 100-day program request, but when setting the procedural schedule, the CALJ scheduled an early evidentiary hearing on the economic prong of the domestic industry pursuant to the Commission’s pilot program for interim initial determinations. Following that initial hearing, the CALJ issued an interim initial determination finding that Hyundai had satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. After the full evidentiary hearing, the CALJ issued a final initial determination finding a violation of § 337 by the respondents based on infringement of all asserted patents. The Commission decided to review both the initial and final determinations.

On review, the Commission reversed the finding that the complainant had satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement. As the Commission explained, where DI products do not have overlapping protection across common asserted patents, a complainant must treat each product as requiring a separate DI showing. The Commission cannot aggregate investments in articles covered by one patent with investments in articles only covered by a different patent. Here, because each DI product practiced only one of the asserted design patents, to satisfy the economic prong Hyundai was required to demonstrate that the investments in each product were independently significant. The Commission also held that investments in plant and equipment (§ 1337(a)(3)(A)) cannot be combined with employment of labor or capital (§ 1337(a)(3)(B)) and concluded that Hyundai had mistakenly aggregated its investments from both prongs.

Commissioner Schmidtlein filed an opinion concurring with the outcome but declining to join the majority opinion based on her view that it went beyond what was necessary to dispose of the investigation.

Distinguishing Drinkware—Provisional Priority Determined Differently in Pre- and Post-AIA Patents

by Alexander Piala, PhD | Nov 30, 2023 | America Invents Act, Patents

In a precedential final written decision, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board concluded that a patent does not need to contain a claim supported by a provisional application’s disclosure to draw priority to that provisional for prior art purposes post America Invents Act (AIA). Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse, Inc., IPR2021-01466, paper 34 (PTAB Mar. 10, 2023) (designated precedential Nov. 15, 2023) (Melvin, Cotta, Wisz, APJs).

Penumbra filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition targeting a patent directed to a “thrombectomy system,” which is a system for removing blood clots in the brain. Penumbra challenged the claims on four different grounds, and each included the Tiegen reference. Therefore, the petition would fail if the Tiegen reference was not prior art.

The challenged patent was filed on July 18, 2019, and drew priority to a provisional application filed on October 24, 2018. Tiegen drew priority to two provisional applications—one dated December 12, 2018, and another dated July 24, 2018. Whether Tiegen was prior art thus depended on whether the challenged patent could draw priority to its provisional application, and whether Tiegen could draw priority to its July 24, 2018, provisional. RapidPulse challenged Tiegen on both bases.

First, the Board assessed the proper priority date for the challenged patent. The Board explained that in order for the patent to draw priority to its provisional application, that provisional application had to provide written support for the challenged patent’s claims. Penumbra argued that the challenged patent’s provisional application did not have written support for the claimed “prevent[ing] forward flow.” RapidPulse responded, arguing that the disclosure of a “minimal amount of momentum from the fluid column” disclosed the claimed “preventing forward flow.” Forward flow generates momentum from the fluid column, so minimizing momentum required preventing fluid flow, according to RapidPulse. RapidPulse also pointed to embodiments that had substantially no forward flow from the distal end of the system.

Penumbra responded by explaining that the provisional application required forward flow in some embodiments, and nothing in the specification stated that the flow should be prevented. The Board agreed, explaining that the provisional application included embodiments with forward flow, and while the provisional recited some embodiments with small amounts of forward flow, the provisional did not indicate that the low forward flow was significant. The Board observed that “one cannot disclose a forest in the original application, and then later pick a tree out of the forest.”

Having determined that the priority date of the challenged patent was July 18, 2019, the Board turned to the priority date of Tiegen. The Board distinguished the present case over Dynamic Drinkware, a 2015 US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case. Dynamic Drinkware states that for prior art purposes, a prior art patent can only draw priority to a provisional application if the prior art patent contains a claim supported by that provisional application. The Board explained that Dynamic Drinkware does not apply post-AIA. Instead, the Board found that, based on the language of AIA 35 [...]

Continue Reading

The End Is Not So Near: Patent Term Adjustments Count in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Determinations

by Jake B. Vallen | Sep 7, 2023 | Patents

Addressing for the first time how patent term adjustments (PTAs) interact with obviousness-type double patenting (ODP), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that when members of a patent family have different expiration dates due to PTAs, the earlier expiring family members can be used as a basis for an ODP invalidity challenge against the later expiring family members. In re Cellect, LLC, Case Nos. 2022-1293; -1294; -1295; -1296 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2023) (Lourie, Dyk, Reyna, JJ.)

Cellect owns several patents directed to devices with image sensors, such as personal digital assistant devices and phones. Each patent claims priority from a single application. None of the patents were subject to a terminal disclaimer, and each was granted PTA under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b) because of PTO delay during prosecution. Had the patents not been granted PTA, each one would have expired on the same date as the original application.

After Cellect sued for infringement, the defendant requested ex parte reexaminations and asserted that the patents were unpatentable based on ODP. During the reexaminations, the Examiner “determin[ed] that the challenged claims were obvious variants of Cellect’s prior-expiring reference patent claims” because “although the ODP invalidating reference patents form a network across the four ex parte reexamination proceedings, all invalidated claims can be traced back to the single family member [now expired] patent that did not receive a grant of PTA.” The Patent Trial & Appeal Board affirmed the Examiner’s finding. Cellect appealed.

The Federal Circuit began with the inquiry for determining unpatentability based on ODP and whether, in that context, a patent’s expiration date includes a duly granted PTA under 35 U.S.C. § 154. While the Court recognized that the relevant expiration date for an ODP analysis where a patent received a patent term extension (PTE) is the pre-PTE expiration date, the Court concluded that, in the context of patents that have received PTAs, the relevant expiration date for analyzing ODP is the expiration date accounting for the PTA regardless of whether a terminal disclaimer has been filed. The Court reasoned that when determining whether claims are unpatentable for ODP, PTA and PTE, they “should be treated differently” because each is governed by different statutes that were designed to address different circumstances. While both PTAs and PTEs were intended to recover lost patent terms, PTAs were designed to extend patent terms because of administrative delays in patent processing and preclude the extension of a patent term past a terminal disclaimer. PTEs were designed to extend a patent term because of regulatory delays in product approval and are not foreclosed by a terminal disclaimer. As such, the Court reasoned that not contemplating a PTA when analyzing ODP would “frustrate the clear intent of Congress” because “when a terminal disclaimer has been entered in a patent subject to PTA, no patent (or claim) may be extended beyond the disclaimed expiration date.”

The Federal Circuit next considered whether examiners are required to consider “equitable concerns” such as good faith when [...]

Continue Reading

PTO Proposes Patent Fee Increases

by Amol Parikh | May 4, 2023 | Patents

The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) announced proposed patent fee increases. Patent fees would increase by about 5% across the board because of inflation.

Certain fees would be increased by substantially more than the 5% inflationary increase to reduce subsidization from other fee sources. For example, the overall design patent fees would increase by 48%, based on a 27% increase in filing, search and examination fees and a 76% issue fee increase. The PTO also proposes a 100% increase in the excess claim fee for each claim over 20, and a 25% increase in the fee for each independent claim over three. Because the costs of reviewing patent term extensions is complex, the PTO proposes fee increases of 196% to 468%. The PTO also proposes a fee of $500 for filing an After Final Consideration Pilot (AFCP) 2.0 request, and new fees for filing an information disclosure statement (IDS) that causes the number of applicant-provided citations to exceed 50, 100 or 200 citations, respectively.

To offset the loss of future maintenance fee payments, the PTO proposes fees of $1,500 for continuing applications filed more than three years from the earliest benefit date and $3,000 for continuing applications filed more than seven years from the earliest benefit date.

Other proposed fee increases are intended to expedite the patent examination process. For example, the PTO proposes a 25% increase in the fee for a second request for continued examination (RCE) and an 80% increase for a third or subsequent RCE. The fee for a terminal disclaimer filed after the first action on the merits and before a final rejection would increase by 194%. After a final rejection or notice of allowance, the fee would increase by 371%. On or after a notice of appeal, the increase would be 547%, and the proposed increase for filing a terminal disclaimer in an issued patent would be 724%.

The PTO further proposes increasing Patent Trial & Appeal Board America Invents Act (AIA) trial fees by 25%. The PTO also proposes new fees for inter partes review (IPR) and post grant review (PGR) petitions that exceed the word count limits. For example, the PTO proposes a 50% higher fee for petitions that exceed the word count limit by up to 50%, and a 100% higher fee for those that exceed the limit by up to 100%.

A public hearing is scheduled for May 18, 2023. Those wishing to present oral testimony at the hearing must submit a written request by May 11, 2023. Written comments on the proposed fees will be accepted until May 25, 2023.

The PTO anticipates that the fee changes will be implemented around January 2025.

More details, including a complete list of the proposed fee increases, can be found on the PTO website.