Patent Lodge

Earlier this year, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office proposed a rule that would affect terminal disclaimers filed to obviate Non-Statutory Double Patenting rejections.

On December 14, 2024, the window will seemingly shut forever on the After Final Consideration Pilot Program 2.0.

This summer, the USPTO issued updated guidance on the ever-evolving subject-matter eligibility standard for the patentability of AI inventions. This guidance aims to provide clarity regarding the analysis of whether an invention is directed to an abstract idea and, even if the invention is an abstract idea, whether the invention is integrated into a practical application.

As excitement concerning AI technology rages on, we have seen more reporting with respect to certain companies.

It should not come as much of a surprise that major shakeups are ahead for the U.S. Federal Government, with President-Elect Donald Trump voted back into office and starting his second term in January 2025. But will this involve the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office?

Last Spring, we reported on a case before the U.S. Court Of Appeals for the Federal Circuit relating to U.S. design patents, LKQ Corp. v. G. M. Global Technologies. As we noted then, the Federal Circuit, in agreeing to take up the case, would be deciding whether change was needed for the long-standing, established test for invalidation of U.S. design patents. That case has now been decided.

Ever hear the saying, “when life gives you lemons, make lemonade?” When the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office renders a Final Office Action, or in this analogy, a “lemon,” some practitioners believe responding with a written response and Request for Continued Examination is an automatic course of action. However, why not try and turn the setback into a step forward?

Well, the Summer Olympics are almost upon us and that got me thinking. Technology plays an important part in sport, such as with the development of sport equipment, gear and clothing. Many aspects of this equipment, gear and clothing may be patented, and thus there is a connection between the Olympics and patents. However, what about a connection between Olympians and patents? Put another way, has any Olympian also been a patent holder? 

As part of the overall dynamic involved in pursuing U.S. patents and trademarks, an adversarial undercurrent can often materialize between applicant and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. It is no surprise that the intensity of that undercurrent can be a function of the total time/expense before a patent is granted or a trademark is registered. And, if grant/registration is ultimately not achieved, what once was adversarial can be later viewed as unfairly subjective.

Last summer, we reported on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision regarding enablement compliance (in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi). The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office has recently responded, publishing new guidelines for enablement, with these guidelines being applicable regardless of the technology.