You searched for Patent filing - Page 6 of 31

Results for "Patent filing"

Skilled Artisan’s View Is Decisive in Assessing Asserted Claim Drafting Error

by Dominik Rissmann | Jan 16, 2025 | EU Update, Patents

The Court of Appeal (CoA) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) clarified the legal standard for correcting obvious type inaccuracies in patent claims, explaining that the view of a skilled person at the filing date is decisive when assessing whether a patent claim contains an obvious error. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Samsung Bioepis NL B.V., Case No. UPC_CoA_402/2024; APL_40470/2024 (CoA Luxembourg Dec. 20, 2024) (Grabinski, Blok, Gougé, JJ.; Enderlin, Hedberg, TJ.)

Alexion owns a European patent directed to a drug comprising an antibody that includes the “SEQ ID NO:4” amino acid sequence and that binds “complement component 5” (C5). The description refers to SEQ ID NO:4 as a sequence of 236 amino acids, and the claims also refer to SEQ ID NO:4. It is known in the state of the art that an antibody comprising the entire amino acid sequence, including amino acids forming a “signal peptide,” is unlikely to bind C5. Alexion sought provisional measures, arguing that Samsung infringed Alexion’s patent even though Samsung’s drug did not include the first 22 amino acids (i.e., the signal peptide in this case) of SEQ ID NO:4.

Originally, Alexion applied for the patent as granted but later requested to amend the claims to exclude the first 22 amino acids because of an obvious error during prosecution. The Technical Board of Appeal (TBA) of the European Patent Office (EPO) rejected the request and found that the requested amendment was not a correction of an obvious error.

The Court of First Instance similarly rejected Alexion’s request, although it found that Samsung made literal use of the patent. The Court of First Instance argued, contrary to the TBA, that the first 22 amino acids were meant to be excluded from SEQ ID NO:4 in the patent claim, and that this sequence was obviously not correctly reproduced in the view of a skilled person because otherwise the claimed drug would be unsuitable to bind to C5 (as was undisputed by the parties). However, the Court of First Instance rejected Alexion’s request for provisional measures against Samsung. The Court of First Instance clarified that it must consider not only its own claim interpretation but also the TBA’s different interpretation. Its rationale was that because it is the infringement-focused court, the Court of First Instance should, before ordering provisional measures, consider whether the TBA, based on its interpretation, would revoke the patent in parallel proceedings because of insufficient disclosure under Article 83 of the European Patent Convention. Ultimately, considering the TBA’s claim interpretation, the Court of First Instance found that the patent’s validity was not certain to the extent required to provide provisional measures. Alexion appealed.

The CoA rejected Alexion’s appeal, finding that the Court of First Instance’s claim interpretation (i.e., excluding the first 22 amino acids from the claim ) was legally flawed. The CoA instead adopted the TBA’s claim interpretation and argued (on this point, not much different from the Court of First Instance) that the EPO was likely to revoke the patent. The [...]

Continue Reading

Neck or Nothing? “Quotation” Invalidates On-Sale Bar

by Keval Amin | Dec 19, 2024 | America Invents Act, Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the patents at issue invalid based on the patent owner’s “quotation” letter to a third party, concluding it was a commercial offer for sale under pre-America Invents Act (AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) notwithstanding the patent owner’s reservation of a post-quote acceptance. Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. v. Belvac Production Machinery, Inc., Case Nos. 22-2299; -2300 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 10, 2024) (Dyk, Hughes, Cunningham, JJ.)

Crown Packaging Technology owns patents for necking machines, which reduce the top diameter of metal beverage cans. The earliest priority date for the patents was April 24, 2008, setting the critical date of April 24, 2007. On November 14, 2006, Crown sent Complete Packaging Machinery a letter quoting one of its necking machines that embodied the claims of its patents.

Crown sued Belvac Production Machinery for infringing Crown’s patents. Belvac raised an invalidity defense under § 102(b), contending that Crown’s pre-critical-date letter to Complete Packaging constituted a commercial offer for sale, which rendered the patents invalid. On summary judgment, Crown argued that its letter could not create a binding contract, was not a commercial offer for sale, and was not an offer for sale “in this country” as required by § 102(b). The district court agreed with Crown, finding that the letter was merely an invitation to make an offer, not an offer in itself. At trial, the jury found the patents valid but not infringed. Both parties appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s validity determination, finding that Crown’s letter was an invalidating offer for sale under § 102(b). The Court’s analysis involved five factors:

Whether the subject of the offer embodied the claims of the patents.
Whether the offer occurred “in this country.”
Whether the offer predated the critical date.
Whether the invention was the subject of a commercial offer for sale.
Whether the invention was ready for patenting.

Crown conceded that the necking machine embodied the asserted patent claims, was ready for patenting, and that the letter predated the critical date. Thus, the dispute focused on whether the letter was a commercial offer for sale and whether it was made “in this country.”

The Federal Circuit determined that the letter was a commercial offer for sale. While labeled as a “quotation,” the letter included definite terms typically associated with a binding offer, such as pricing, delivery schedules, payment terms, warranties, and liability conditions. These terms established the mutual obligations of the parties. The Court found that the letter required immediate performance since Complete Packaging was obligated to pay 50% of the purchase price upfront and Crown committed to begin manufacturing upon receipt of payment. Also, despite an explicit clause requiring Crown’s written acceptance, the Court found that the letter was still a commercial offer for sale under established legal precedent.

The Federal Circuit also rejected Crown’s argument that the letter was not made “in this country.” Pre-AIA § 102(b) defines an offer made to a US company at its US [...]

Continue Reading

For Deterrence: Inherent Power to the Rescue to Punish Meritless Lawsuit

by James M. Oehler | Dec 19, 2024 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision to use its inherent power to award deterrence sanctions for filing a nuisance patent infringement lawsuit. PS Products Inc. v. Panther Trading Co. Inc., Case No. 2023-1665 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 6, 2024) (Moore, Stoll, Cunningham, JJ.)

PSP filed a design patent infringement lawsuit against Panther. PSP voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice after Panther threatened to seek Rule 11 sanctions for the filing of a frivolous lawsuit. After the case was dismissed, Panther filed a motion seeking its attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and $100,000 in deterrence sanctions under the court’s inherent power. The district court found the case exceptional under § 285 and awarded Panther its attorneys’ fees. The district court also found PSP and its counsel joint and severally liable for $25,000 in deterrence sanctions. PSP did not appeal the finding that the case was exceptional or the decision to grant attorneys’ fees, but it did appeal the award of deterrence sanctions under the court’s inherent power.

Design patent infringement requires showing that an ordinary observer would find the accused product and claimed design “substantially the same” such that the observer would be deceived into believing that the accused product was the patented design. However, in some cases the accused product and the patented design are “plainly dissimilar” such that it would be clear to an ordinary observer the two designs were not “substantially the same.”

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s award of deterrence sanctions, finding that the district court did not err by inferring PSP’s bad faith conduct based on the clear lack of legal merit of the case against Panther. The Court found that Panther’s accused product was “plainly dissimilar” to the patented design (shown below), such that PSP’s case was a nuisance lawsuit.

The Federal Circuit found that bad faith was also reasonably inferred based on PSP’s history of filing 25 meritless lawsuits in the same district, even though the district court did not analyze each suit. PSP cited the general venue statute in all 25 lawsuits rather than the required patent-specific venue statute, and PSP did not have proper venue in the lawsuit against Panther.

The Federal Circuit also found no abuse of discretion when the district court imposed sanctions under its inherent power. Rule 11 sanctions were unavailable since the case was already dismissed, but the district court had no other mechanism to sanction PSP’s bad faith conduct of filing multiple meritless lawsuits except the court’s inherent power. Finally, the Court found that imposing deterrence sanctions under the district court’s inherent power was proper even when it had already awarded attorneys’ fees and costs under § 285 because the statute does not preclude separate sanctions.

The Federal Circuit declined to award Panther its attorneys’ fees for the appeal because while PSP’s [...]

Continue Reading

New Year, New Fees: PTO Issues 2025 Fee Schedule

by Amol Parikh | Dec 5, 2024 | Patents

The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) issued its final rule setting and adjusting patent fees that will take effect on January 19, 2025. 89 Fed. Reg. 91898 (Nov. 20, 2024).

The final rule sets or adjusts 433 patent fees for undiscounted, small, and micro entities, including the introduction of 52 new fees. The fee adjustments are grouped into three categories:

Across-the-board adjustment to patent fees.
Adjustment to front-end fees.
Targeted fees.

Fees not covered by the targeted adjustments will increase by approximately 7.5%. Front-end fees to obtain a patent (i.e., filing, search, examination, and issue fees) are set to increase by an additional 2.5% on top of the 7.5% across-the-board adjustment. Targeted adjustments include increasing fees related to continuing applications, design patent applications, filing excess claims, extensions of time for provisional applications, information disclosure statement sizes, patent term adjustments, patent term extensions, requests for continued examinations, suspension of actions, terminal disclaimers, unintentional delay petitions, and Requests for Director Review of a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision.

More information, including the new fee schedule, is available on the PTO’s website.

Trademark Fee Increases: The TEAS Party Is Over

by Abigail A. Rubinstein | Dec 5, 2024 | Trademarks

After a lengthy public comment and review process, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) announced trademark fee increases effective January 18, 2025. The goal of PTO fee setting is to provide sufficient financial resources to facilitate the effective administration of the US intellectual property system. The PTO aspires to recover aggregate costs to:

Finance the PTO’s mission, strategic goals, and priorities.
Enable financial sustainability.
Promote efficient operations and filing behaviors.
Align fees with the costs of services provided.
Encourage access to the trademark system for all stakeholders.

The fees for filing a new trademark application via either the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) or TEAS Plus will remain unchanged: $350 per class for a TEAS standard application and $250 per class for a TEAS Plus application for as long as TEAS remains available (and then using the Beta site discussed below). However, the PTO will institute surcharges for applications that are incomplete or contain custom identifications of goods or services. These application surcharges are intended to encourage more complete applications, which will improve examination efficiency and help reduce pendency.

Description Surcharge Insufficient information (Sections 1 and 44), per class $100 Using the free-form text box instead of the Trademark ID Manual within the Trademark Center to identify goods and services (Sections 1 and 44), per class $200 Each additional group of 1,000 characters in the free-form text box beyond the first 1,000 (Sections 1 and 44), per affected class $200

Since the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is currently unable to collect surcharges, the PTO will raise the fee for WIPO Madrid Trademark Applications to $600 per class.

The PTO will also raise the fees for post-registration filings to offset higher processing costs for these filings and continue balancing the cost of base applications.

Filing Current Fee Fee as of January 18, 2025 Section 9 registration renewal application, per class $300 $325 Section 8 declaration, per class $225 $325 Section 15 declaration, per class $200 $250 Section 71 declaration, per class $225 $325

The PTO has not increased the filing fees in connection with intent to use filings since 2002, although the time to examine such filings has increased exponentially because of the need to examine questionable specimens. Those fees are now set to increase as follows:

Description Current Fee Fee as of January 18, 2025 Amendment to allege use (AAU), per class $100 $150 Statement of use (SOU), per class $100 $150

The fees for requesting an extension of time are unchanged.

Finally, the number of petitions and protests have increased. The PTO will attempt to recover more of the cost of processing petitions and protests as follows:

Description Current Fee Fee as of January 18, 2025 Petition to the Director $250 $400 Petition to revive an application $150 $250 Letter of protest $50 $150

For further details, including a complete list of the fee increases, click here.

The PTO also announced that as of January 18, 2025, filers [...]

Continue Reading

Moving to Recuse? Too Little, Too Late

by Lois D. Mermelstein | Nov 14, 2024 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that waiting until well after an adverse summary judgment motion to move for a district court judge’s recusal is untimely and moot, especially where an appeal from the adverse decision is already filed and where the recusal motion is based on public information. Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit LLC, et al., Case No. 22-1526 (Fed Cir. Nov. 1, 2024) (Taranto, Prost, Reyna, JJ.) (nonprecedential).

Cellspin filed a complaint for patent infringement against Fitbit and others in October 2017. In February 2021, Fitbit amended its corporate disclosure statement to reflect the completion of its acquisition by Google (an indirect subsidiary of Alphabet). Almost a year later, in January 2022, Fitbit and the other defendants moved for summary judgment of noninfringement in their respective cases, and in June 2022, the district court granted summary judgment.

Months later, in January 2023, after the grant of summary judgment and the filing of notices of appeal from that grant, Cellspin filed a motion to recuse the district court judge based on the judge’s mutual fund investments that were likely to invest in Google. The consulting firm for which the judge’s husband worked also sold Google services, but the judge’s spouse did not do work for Google. The district court denied the motion on the merits as untimely and because the district court lacked authority to vacate the summary judgment that was already on appeal.

Applying Ninth Circuit law and reviewing for abuse of discretion, the Federal Circuit found that Cellspin’s behavior in waiting until well after it had lost on summary judgment, and almost two years after Google’s acquisition of Fitbit became final, “raises obvious concerns of lack of equity and strategic misuse of recusal.” The sources Fitbit cited for the judge’s spouse and the activities of the spouse’s employer were also public well before the summary judgment motion was granted, as were the judge’s financial disclosures.

While there is no specific time limit for seeking recusal, the Federal Circuit (citing its 1989 decision in Polaroid v. Eastman Kodak) noted that “timeliness is a well-established consideration in application of the [recusal] statute. In deciding motions to vacate orders issued by an allegedly disqualified judge, the courts have used ‘untimely’ as a synonym for ‘unfair’ when the circumstances, like those present here, are such that a grant of the motion would produce a result inequitable, unjust, and unfair.”

The Federal Circuit also noted that the risk of injustice to the parties from denying vacatur would also be essentially nonexistent here because the Federal Circuit’s concurrent holding on the summary judgment appeal against other defendants had preclusive effect, resolving Cellspin’s infringement assertions against Fitbit as well.

Practice Note: Any motion for recusal should be promptly filed when grounds for the motion become apparent.

PTO Proposes Additional Audits to Put “Specimen Farms” Out to Pasture

by Taylor MacDonald | Nov 14, 2024 | Trademarks

In response to reports that some registrants use fraudulent specimens to prove continued use in commerce, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) proposed an update to its post-registration audit process. Changes in Post-Registration Audit Selection for Affidavits or Declarations of Use, Continued Use, or Excusable Nonuse in Trademark Cases, 89 Fed. Reg. 85,435 (Oct. 28, 2024).

Since its institution in 2017, the PTO’s post-registration audit process has been essentially random. Pursuant to Section 8 of the Trademark Act, trademark owners are required to file documentation in the form of affidavits of continued use indicating that the marks remain in use in connection with goods or services covered by the registration. In turn, the public relies on the trademark register for notice of marks that may be available for use and registration. The PTO conducts random audits of submitted documentation to ensure its reliability.

Since encountering various filings that revealed “systemic efforts to subvert” a trademark’s use in commerce requirement, the PTO has taken steps to expand its audit program. For example, in 2019, the office amended its examination procedures to highlight “digitally created/altered or mockup specimens” that fraudulently indicate continued use in commerce. In 2021, the PTO became aware of “specimen farms,” which are websites designed to create the illusion of commerce without providing actual sales. To combat deceptive maintenance of obsolete marks, the PTO will no longer perform only randomized audits but will also conduct audits “directed” at items that show tell-tale signs of digital alteration or specimen farm website use.

The objective of the directed audit program is “to promote the accuracy and integrity” of the trademark register. This proposed policy is open for public comments on the Federal eRulemaking Portal until November 27, 2024.

Got Pillaged? Not If You Didn’t Follow the APA and FTCA

by Christian Tatum | Oct 10, 2024 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision dismissing claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) relating to “pillaged patents.” The Federal Circuit found that dismissal was appropriate because the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies and the claims were barred under collateral estoppel. Winfrey v. Dep’t of Com., Case No. 24-1260 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2024) (Prost, Hughes, Cunningham, JJ.) (per curiam).

Eula Winfrey filed a pro se complaint in district court seeking “relief for the issue of two pillaged patents,” one of which was directed to a “step-up diaper” and the other to a “stroller buddy.” Winfrey claimed that the PTO “improperly denied her two patent applications and wrongfully deemed the applications to be abandoned,” and that she was the true inventor of Huggies Pull-Ups diapers. Interpreting Winfrey’s requests for relief as claims under the FTCA and the APA, the district court dismissed the claims related to the step-up diaper patent application for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court found that Winfrey never presented an administrative claim to the PTO as required by the FTCA and that she did not file a petition to revive the application after the PTO deemed it abandoned. The district court also dismissed Winfrey’s APA claim related to the stroller buddy patent application based on collateral estoppel because Winfrey had previously litigated that claim. Winfrey appealed.

Applying Eleventh Circuit law, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of all of Winfrey’s claims. Addressing the FTCA claim first, the Court noted that “nowhere in any of her extensive filings before this court do we find evidence that Ms. Winfrey filed the requisite administrative claim to bring a claim for money damages against the USPTO.” The Federal Circuit also affirmed the district court’s dismissal of claims related to the stroller buddy application based on collateral estoppel, finding that Winfrey had brought the claim unsuccessfully three times. Finally, with respect to the APA claim for the step-up diaper patent application, the Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies after finding that Winfrey failed to “present any evidence that she filed a petition with the USPTO to revive her application or challenge its abandonment determination.”

From Oops to Encore: The Board’s Premature Adverse Judgment

by Keval Amin | Jul 25, 2024 | Patents

The Director of the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) overturned the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s premature adverse judgment against a patent owner and remanded an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding based on the fact that the patent owner had initially instructed its counsel to cease work on the IPR while seeking new representation for related district court litigation, which contributed to the procedural delays. Shenzhen Xinzexing E-commerce Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhen Carku Technology Co., Ltd., IPR2024-00222 (PTO-Ofc. of Dir. July 10, 2024) (Vidal, PTO Dir.)

Shenzhen Xinzexing E-commerce Co. filed a petition for an IPR to challenge certain claims of a patent owned by Shenzhen Carku Technology Co. (Patent Owner). The petition and associated documents for the IPR were properly served on the Patent Owner at the address of record. The Board issued a notice on November 29, 2023, allowing the Patent Owner three months to file a preliminary response and requiring mandatory notice information to be submitted within 21 days. The Patent Owner did not comply with either obligation.

Following the Patent Owner’s failure to submit the required notices and response, the Board issued a sua sponte adverse judgment on May 21, 2024, interpreting the lack of response as abandonment of the IPR contest. However, on July 8, 2024, the Patent Owner filed the necessary notices and appointed new counsel, indicating that the previous counsel had been instructed to withdraw from the case and that new representation was being arranged.

The Director sua sponte overturned the Board’s adverse judgment, finding that it was premature. The Board’s communications did not clearly indicate that noncompliance with the notice requirements would result in adverse judgment. Given that the Patent Owner had shown efforts to rectify the situation by appointing new counsel and filing the required documents, the director vacated the adverse judgment and remanded the case for the Board to determine whether the petition showed a reasonable likelihood that any of the challenged patent claims were unpatentable.

Practice Note: This decision highlights the necessity of adhering to procedural deadlines and ensuring that consequences for noncompliance are clearly communicated. The Board’s failure to provide explicit notice of abandonment of the contest contributed to the premature adverse judgment, reinforcing the importance of clear procedural guidance.

PTO Asks Whether Legislative Action for Experimental Use Exception Is Warranted

by Peter Brunovskis, PhD | Jul 18, 2024 | Patents

The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) issued a request for comments concerning the public’s views on the common law experimental use exception and whether Congress should enact a statutory experimental use exception. 89 Fed. Reg. 53963 (June 28, 2024).

The experimental use defense for alleged patent infringement has been part of US jurisprudence for more than 200 years. The current state of experimental use exception jurisprudence in the United States is set forth in Madey v. Duke University, 307 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In that case, the Federal Circuit proffered a “very narrow and strictly limited experimental use defense” prohibiting an alleged infringer from invoking such a defense for “use that is in any way commercial in nature” or “any conduct that is in keeping with the alleged infringer’s legitimate business, regardless of commercial implications.”

The Madey decision has been met with a mix of opinions, some arguing that the Federal Circuit’s construction encourages innovation and others arguing that it impedes innovation. Limited exemptions have been carved out in the US. For example, 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) established a safe harbor (the Bolar exemption) allowing for the experimental use of a patented invention by parties to collect regulatory approval data for medical devices or drugs. The Plant Variety Protection Act also provides for exemptions allowing the use of protected plant varieties for research and breeding of new varieties.

While many European and Asian nations have statutory experimental use exceptions in place, legislative efforts for codifying a statutory experimental use exception in the US have thus far failed. With the intent to promote fair competition and innovation, the PTO seeks to revisit this issue by collecting the public’s views on the impact of the experimental use exception in all technology areas. Of particular interest, the PTO seeks comments on one or more topics, including:

How current US experimental use exception jurisprudence impacts investment and/or research and development in any field of technology.
Whether certain technologies are negatively affected by the current experimental use exception jurisprudence.
The impact that a statutory experimental use exception would have on the innovation and commercialization of new technologies with respect to research and development, ability to obtain funding, investment strategy, licensing of patents and patent applications, product development, sales (including downstream and upstream sales), competition, and patent enforcement and litigation.
The impact of current experimental use exception jurisprudence on decisions made with respect to filing, purchasing, licensing, selling or maintaining patent applications and patents in the US.
Reasons for adopting a statutory experimental use exception or maintaining the status quo.
How a statutory experimental use exception should be defined to ensure that patent rights are preserved.
Recommendations for enhancing and facilitating experimental research on patent inventions in the US.

When responding to the questions, commenters are further asked to identify whether they represent, for example: