You searched for Patent filing | Page 2 of 34

Results for "Patent filing"

Patent by Secret Process: Perils of Pre-Patent Profiting

by Connor S. Romm | Aug 22, 2024 | America Invents Act, Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the International Trade Commission’s (ITC) determination that the asserted process patents were invalid under the America Invents Act (AIA) because products made using the patented process were sold more than one year before the patents’ effective filing dates. Celanese International Corporation, et al. v. International Trade Commission, Case No. 22-1827 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 2024) (Reyna, Mayer, Cunningham, JJ.)

Celanese owns patents that cover a process for making the artificial sweetener acesulfame potassium (Ace-K). It was undisputed that Celanese’s patented process was in secret use in Europe and that Ace-K produced using this process had been sold in the United States before the patents’ effective filing dates. Under pre-AIA caselaw, such sales of products made using a secret process before the critical date would trigger the on-sale bar and invalidate any later-sought patent claims on that process. However, because Celanese’s patents had effective filing dates after March 15, 2013, the AIA rules applied. Thus, the case hinged on whether the AIA altered this rule.

In 2019, in Helsinn v. Teva, the Supreme Court addressed similar facts and confirmed that the Federal Circuit’s pre-AIA “on sale” case law, which established that “secret sales” could invalidate a patent, still applied. In Helsinn, the patentee had obtained a patent related to a fixed dose of palonosetron. Prior to the critical date, the patentee entered into a supply and purchase agreement with a third party that covered this same fixed dose of palonosetron. The Supreme Court concluded that Congress, by reenacting similar language in the AIA concerning the on-sale bar, appeared to have adopted the Federal Circuit’s pre-AIA interpretation of the on-sale bar. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that, consistent with Federal Circuit pre-AIA precedent, an inventor’s prior sale of an invention to a third party can qualify as invalidating prior art even if the third party is obligated to keep the invention confidential.

However, unlike in Helsinn, where the claimed invention was the very subject of the commercial sale at issue, Celanese’s patents covered the secret process used to make Ace-K, and it was only the resulting Ace-K that was the subject of commercial sale – not the patented process itself. Although this distinction would not alter the outcome under pre-AIA law, Celanese averred that the AIA had revised the rules for this specific situation. To support its theory, Celanese referenced, among other things, the AIA’s use of the phrase “claimed invention” as opposed to simply “invention” as recited in pre-AIA discussion of the on-sale bar. According to Celanese, this change implied that the invention specifically “claimed” must be on sale to qualify as invalidating prior art.

The ITC rejected Celanese’s argument, concluding that the AIA did not alter the pre-AIA rule that “a patentee’s sale of an unpatented product made according to a secret method triggers the on-sale bar to patentability.” Accordingly, the ITC found that Celanese’s patents were invalid because Celanese sold Ace-K made using its secret process more [...]

Continue Reading

Section 337 Doesn’t Require Article III Standing for Claimant but Claimant Must Be “Patentee”

by Alexander P. Ott | May 30, 2024 | Patents

Addressing an initial determination by an administrative law judge (ALJ) granting summary determination and terminating a Section 337 investigation for lack of Article III standing, the US International Trade Commission reversed and held that Section 337 does not require claimants to have Article III standing. Certain Active Matrix Organic Light-Emitting Diode Display Panels and Modules for Mobile Devices, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1351, Commission Opinion (May 15, 2024).

In late 2022, Samsung Display filed a complaint seeking to institute a Section 337 investigation based on its infringement allegations regarding four patents and seeking an exclusion order against replacement displays sold by various companies. In late 2023, on the eve of the evidentiary hearing, the ALJ granted the respondents’ motion for summary determination that the complainant lacked constitutional standing because Samsung Display had granted its parent company, Samsung Electronics Co., an implied license to the asserted patents with an unrestricted right to sublicense. Samsung Display petitioned for Commission review. On review, the Commission reversed.

The Commission first noted that because it’s an administrative tribunal and not an Article III court, the “case or controversy” requirement does not apply to parties before it and standing is instead based on its governing statute. The Commission acknowledged its previous decisions where it had applied a constitutional standing requirement and expressly overruled those decisions. It further noted that its statute does not include the “patentee” requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 281 that applies to plaintiffs in district court actions but reiterated its long-standing practice of requiring a complainant be the owner or exclusive licensee of the asserted patent(s) at the time of filing the complaint.

The Commission held that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether Samsung Display was a “patentee” when it filed the complaint. The Commission found there was an open question as to whether Samsung Electronics actually had a right to sublicense without Samsung Display’s explicit or implicit authorization. The Commission thus remanded the investigation to the ALJ to conduct further proceedings to develop the factual record.

Patent Thicket Avoidance: PTO Proposes Changes to Terminal Disclaimer Practice

by Peter Brunovskis, PhD | May 23, 2024 | Patents

On May 10, 2024, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (Notice) concerning major changes to the terminal disclaimer (TD) practice, which may lead to a sea change in patent prosecution strategies. The proposed change would require a TD to include an agreement from the patent owner that the patent will be unenforceable if it’s tied directly or indirectly to another patent having any patent claim invalidated or canceled based on prior art. 89 Fed. Reg. 40439 (May 10, 2024).

The rule change is a potential boon for patent challengers and is intended to promote innovation and competition by allowing a competitor to avoid enforcement of patents tied by TDs to patents with claims finally held unpatentable or invalid. Under current practice, invalidation of a patent tied to another patent by a TD does not directly affect the patentability of the other patent. Under the new rule, a competitor could target a single patent in a validity dispute in a post-grant challenge without the need to seek review and invalidation of other related patents. As a result, invalidating one claim in a patent tied to other patents by TDs would render all other tied patents unenforceable.

According to the Notice, the proposed change aligns with the US government’s intent to reduce drug costs and promote competition by reducing barriers to market entry in accordance with President Biden’s Executive Order 14036 on “Promoting Competition in the American Economy.” Part of the reduced costs are said to come from bringing down the cost of challenging large “patent thickets” of multiple patents covering a single product or minor variations of the product tied by TDs.

The proposed rule change would represent a paradigm shift for TD practice. Current TD practice under 37 CFR 1.321(c) or (d) allows applicants to file multiple patents with claims varying in only minor ways from one another by filing TDs to obviate obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) rejections over closely related patent claims issued or pending in applications commonly owned or commonly owned on the basis of a joint research agreement. In filing a TD, the applicant agrees to disclaim any patent term extending beyond the term of the prior patent having similar patent claims.

The proposed rule seeks “to revise 37 CFR 1.321 (c) and (d) to require that a terminal disclaimer filed to obviate nonstatutory double patenting include an agreement by the disclaimant that the subject patent or any patent granted on the subject application shall be enforceable only if the patent is not tied and has never been tied directly or indirectly to a patent by one or more terminal disclaimers filed to obviate nonstatutory double patenting in which:

(1) any claim has been finally held unpatentable or invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 . . . by a Federal court in a civil action or by the PTO, and all appeal rights have been exhausted; or

(2) a [...]

Continue Reading

Prime Delivery: Amazon Program Now Offers Personal Jurisdiction to Patent Holders

by Courtney Seams | May 16, 2024 | Patents

Addressing the issue of personal jurisdiction in the context of a declaratory judgment case involving a program for resolving patent infringement claims, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that a patent owner has personal jurisdiction in the forum of an alleged infringer when it files a program claim against the alleged infringer. SnapRays, dba SnapPower v. Lighting Defense Group, Case No. 23-1184 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2024) (Moore, CJ. Lourie, Dyk, JJ.)

The Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) program helps resolve patent infringement claims against sellers on Amazon. Under APEX, a patent owner submits an APEX Agreement to Amazon that identifies the allegedly infringed patent claim and the Amazon listings with the alleged infringing products. Amazon then sends this APEX Agreement to the seller, who can do one of the following to avoid removal of their accused listings:

Opt into APEX and let a third party determine whether their product likely infringes
Resolve the claim directly with the patent owner
File a lawsuit for declaratory judgment of noninfringement. If the seller does nothing, its listings are automatically removed from Amazon within three weeks of receipt of the APEX Agreement.

Lighting Defense Group (LDG), a Delaware company whose principal place of business is in Arizona, submitted an APEX Agreement alleging that SnapPower’s Amazon products (electrical outlet covers with integrated technology) infringed one of its patents. SnapPower, a Utah company whose principal place of business is in Utah, then filed a declaratory judgment action against LDG in Utah. LDG then filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion, finding that SnapPower did not demonstrate that LDG purposefully directed activities at SnapPower in Utah and that there was no evidence that LDG reached out to Utah other than through responses to SnapPower’s communications. SnapPower appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that LDG was subject to personal jurisdiction under the Court’s three-prong test because (1) LDG purposefully directed its activities at SnapPower in Utah, (2) LDG’s submission of the APEX Agreement was directed to SnapPower in Utah and aimed to affect activities in Utah and (3) it would not be unreasonable to find personal jurisdiction over LDG in Utah.

In assessing the first prong, the Federal Circuit found that LDG knew, via APEX’s terms, that Amazon would notify SnapPower of the APEX Agreement and that the options available to SnapPower included a claim for declaratory judgment. Further, the Court found that the APEX Agreement had more power than cease and desist letters because of the automatic removal of the listings after three weeks, which would affect sales and activities in Utah.

In assessing the second prong, the Federal Circuit found that personal jurisdiction comported with due process because LDG’s actions aimed to affect marketing, sales and other activities in Utah and because the suit arose out of LDG’s activities in the forum.

In assessing the final prong, the Federal Circuit rejected LDG’s argument that allowing personal jurisdiction would “open the [...]

Continue Reading

PTO Stands by Patent Fee Increases

by Amol Parikh | Apr 11, 2024 | Patents

The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) issued a notice of rulemaking announcing proposed patent fee increases beginning next year. 89 Fed. Reg. 23226 (April 3, 2024). The proposed increases are generally consistent with the PTO’s May 2023 proposal.

The Notice states that the PTO needs the proposed fee adjustments to provide sufficient revenue to recover costs of patent operations in future years. To that end, the PTO proposes to set or adjust 455 patent fees, including 73 new fees. Complete information about the fee adjustments, including the Notice, is available on the PTO’s website.

The fee increases include higher amounts for routine fees necessary to obtain a patent, including filing, search, examination and issue fees. Excess claim fees will also increase to $200 for each claim over 20 and $600 for each independent claim over three. There will also be an escalating fee structure for terminal disclaimers, ranging from $200 if filed before the first office action to $1,400 if filed after the PTO grants the patent. The fees for filing requests for continued examination (RCE) will now use a tiered fee structure and will increase to $1,500 for the first RCE, $2,500 for the second RCE and $3,600 for the third RCE. Patent Trial & Appeal Board fees will increase by about 25%, and a new fee of $400 will be required for a Request for Director Review of a Board decision.

Written comments on proposed patent fees must be submitted by June 3, 2024, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal.

PTO Proposes Trademark Application Filing Changes, Fee Adjustments

by Peter Brunovskis, PhD | Apr 4, 2024 | Trademarks

On March 26, 2024, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register concerning changes to trademark application filings and fee adjustments in trademark cases for 2025. The PTO solicits written comments from the public on the proposed rule changes on or before May 28, 2024. The proposed rules seek to generate sufficient multiyear revenue for trademark operations in future years based on projections described in the notice.

The changes are recommended to support the PTO’s strategic goals and objectives, including optimizing trademark application pendency through the promotion of efficient operations and filing behaviors, issuing accurate and reliable trademark registrations, and encouraging access to the trademark system for stakeholders.

The proposal seeks to incentivize more complete and timely filings, improve prosecution, adjust 31 trademark fees and impose 12 new fees while discontinuing six existing fees. The proposal also seeks to consolidate the present Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) filing options (i.e., TEAS Plus and TEAS standard) into a single electronic filing option. The single option would include most of the same requirements as TEAS Plus, while eliminating those under TEAS Standard. The new filing framework would discontinue the previous filing fees and fees for failing to meet the requirements of a TEAS Plus application. Similar to TEAS Plus, however, applicants complying with the proposed requirements in their initial filing would pay the lowest fees.

The proposed fee adjustments would:

Set the fee for a base application at $350 using the ID Master List (which is $100 more than the current fee for a TEAS Plus application)
Discontinue current fees for filing an application under the Madrid Protocol
Require surcharge fees between $100 and $200 for applications that are noncompliant with the base filing requirements
Require an additional $200 fee per class for the identification of goods and services entered in the free-form text field to incentivize use of the Trademark ID Manual for such identifications instead
Require an additional $200 fee for each additional group of 1,000 characters in the free-form text field; identifications directly from the ID Manual would not incur these fees
Increase fees by $50 for filing amendments to allege use (AAU) and statements of use (SOU), with fees being discounted $100 for electronic filings
Increase post-registration maintenance fees from $50 to $75
Increase the letter of protest fee from $50 to $150.

Regarding the proposed fee adjustments, the notice describes changes to 37 CFR 2.6 and 7.6. The notice further describes changes to 37 CFR 2.22 and 2.71 with respect to base application fees and amendments to correct informalities, respectively.

For further details, see the Federal Register notice.

Patenting Web Advertising? Ask Alice, I Think She’ll Know

by Daniel Sternberg | Mar 14, 2024 | Patents

In a wide-ranging opinion, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity for lack of patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 with respect to claims directed to web-based advertising. Chewy, Inc. v. International Business Machines, Corp., Case No. 22-1756 (Fed. Cir. March 5, 2024) (Moore, Stoll, Cunningham, JJ.)

Chewy filed suit against International Business Machines (IBM) seeking a declaration that Chewy’s website did not infringe multiple patents related to web-based advertising. IBM responded by filing infringement counterclaims. After claim construction and discovery, the district court granted Chewy’s motions for summary judgment of invalidity for lack of patent eligible subject matter with regard to the asserted claims of one patent and noninfringement of the asserted claims of a second patent.

The claims of the first patent relate to providing a targeted advertisement from an “information repository” to a user based on the user’s internet search. In affirming the district court, the Federal Circuit first determined that, under Alice step 1, “[t]he claims broadly recite correlating advertisements with search results using a generic process.” The Court noted that the claims “merely recite the concept of identifying advertisements based on search results, without any specificity as to how this is accomplished,” and are directed to “the abstract idea of identifying advertisements based on search results.”

Turning to Alice step 2, the Federal Circuit found that the claims used a generic database and conventional processing steps, and “claimed use of a conventional repository for storing advertisements and associated search results in a well-known way.” Because “the claims recite the generic process for obtaining search results from a search query and using the search results to identify advertisements,” they failed under Alice step 2 and did not claim patent eligible subject matter under § 101.

Regarding the second asserted patent, the district court construed the claim term “selectively storing advertising objects at a store established at the reception system” as requiring the “advertising objects” to be “pre-fetched” and retrieved before the user requested a page on a website. Because it was undisputed that “Chewy retrieves advertisements in response to a user requesting a page” and not before, the district court ruled that Chewy’s website did not meet this claim limitation. Looking to the intrinsic claim construction evidence, the Federal Circuit held that the district court’s claim construction was amply supported by the specification and prosecution history and affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement. Of note, the Court explained that the specification made multiple references to pre-fetching as being part “of the present invention” and therefore limited the scope of the claims.

With respect to one asserted claim of the second patent, which did not include the limitation at issue, the district court found that Chewy’s website did not practice the limitation of “establishing characterizations for respective users based on the compiled data” because “the record undisputedly showed they deliver advertisements based on the page the user is currently viewing, [...]

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.

Console Yourself: Patent Owner Bears IPR Estoppel Burden

by James M. Oehler | Apr 13, 2023 | Patents

Addressing for the first time the standard and burden of proof for the “reasonably could have raised” requirement for inter partes review (IPR) estoppel to apply, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that a patent owner bears the burden of proving that an IPR petitioner is estopped from using invalidity grounds that a skilled searcher conducting a diligent search reasonably could have been expected to discover. Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., Case Nos. 21-2296; -2297; 22-1070 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2023) (Lourie, Stark, JJ.) (Clevenger, J., dissenting).

Ironburg sued Valve for infringing Ironburg’s video game controller patent. Valve responded by filing an IPR petition in 2016. The Patent Trial & Appeal Board partially instituted on three grounds but declined to institute on two other grounds (the Non-Instituted Grounds), as was permitted prior to the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu. Valve did not seek remand pursuant to SAS, which would have allowed the Board to consider the Non-Instituted Grounds. In the district court litigation, Valve alleged invalidity based on the Non-Instituted Grounds and grounds Valve learned of from a third party’s IPR filed after Valve filed its IPR (the Non-Petitioned Grounds). Ironburg filed a motion asserting that Valve was estopped, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), from asserting both the Non-Instituted Grounds and the Non-Petitioned Grounds. The district court granted Ironburg’s motion in full, removing all of Valve’s invalidity defenses. After trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that Valve willfully infringed the patent. Valve appealed.

35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) precludes an IPR petitioner from asserting invalidity during a district court proceeding based on “any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that [IPR].” The Federal Circuit first addressed the legal standard needed to meet the “reasonably could have raised” requirement for IPR estoppel. The Court found that the “skilled searcher” standard used by several district courts is appropriate, as opposed to a higher “scorched earth” search standard. The “skilled searcher” standard is consistent with the § 315(e)(2) statutory requirement of discovering prior art references that “reasonably could have been raised.”

The Federal Circuit next addressed which party has the burden to prove what prior art references a skilled searcher reasonably would, or would not, have been expected to discover. The district court placed the burden on Valve, the party challenging the patent’s validity, and determined that Valve did not show how difficult it was to find the Non-Petitioned Grounds that Valve did not initially uncover. The Court noted that the third party that did find the Non-Petitioned Grounds may have used a “scorched earth” search, which would make its discovery of the Non-Petitioned Grounds irrelevant to estoppel. The Court concluded that the patent owner has the burden of proving what a skilled searcher reasonably would have found because the patent holder is looking to benefit from estoppel. The Court explained that this conclusion is consistent with the practice of placing the burden on the party asserting [...]

Continue Reading

PTO to Begin Issuing Electronic Patent Grants

by Amol Parikh | Mar 2, 2023 | Patents

On February 28, 2023, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) issued a final rule announcing it would begin issuing electronic patent grants (eGrants) starting April 18, 2023. These eGrants are the official copies of patent grants in an electronic format. During a limited transition period, the PTO will also provide a bound paper version as a ceremonial copy. Once the transition period is over, a bound paper version will be available for a nominal fee. The PTO did not specify when the transition period would end. The Federal Register notice can be found here.

To implement the eGrant, the PTO is removing and reserving 37 CFR 1.315, which states that “[t]he patent will be delivered or mailed upon issuance to the correspondence address of record.” Because patents will be issued electronically, the PTO will no longer physically deliver the patent grant by mailing it to the correspondence address. Instead, the eGrant will issue electronically via the Patent Center.

In addition to the ceremonial paper copy, for a fee, the PTO will still offer certified copies (in accordance with 37 CFR 1.13) and presentation copies. The PTO will no longer accept orders for advance copies of issued patents.

By moving to eGrants, the interval between issue fee payment and patent issuance will be shorter. Thus, applicants will need to be more diligent in filing continuations, divisionals and Quick Path Information Disclosure Statements. For example, Issue Notifications will be available electronically via the Patent Center after the issue fee is paid, usually on the Wednesday or Thursday before the patent issues. The PTO envisions that for those who do not participate in the e-Office action program, a patent may issue electronically before the applicant even receives the mailed Issue Notification.

Older Posts »

« Newer Posts

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS