Since the iRhythm IPRs on which we blogged recently, there have been two more (actually, many more) decisions that are leaving petitioners scratching their heads. In Dabico, the Acting USPTO Director discretionarily denied an IPR petition because of “settled expectations,” the same rationale as in iRhythm. The Acting Director went further and criticized the petitioner for not making more
In a set of astonishing identical Director Review decisions, the Acting USPTO Director discretionarily denied five IPR petitions whose proceedings would have concluded over seven months before the underlying patent infringement suit would have gone to trial. The Acting Director reasoned that the petitioner waited too long to file its IPR petitions because, even though it knew about the
The patent statute 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) allows the USPTO Director to deny institution of an IPR when “the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” In IPR practice, relying on prior art that already had been before the PTO is perfectly acceptable. Under the 2020 decision in Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL
In Part I of this set of blogs, we discussed the impact of the rescission of former USPTO Director Vidal’s Guidance Memorandum for handling discretionary denials in inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. We also discussed Chief Judge Boalick’s Guidance Memorandum on the rescission.
In Part II, we examine a new interim procedure, instituted
Recent actions from the USPTO have engendered a great deal of discussion among the bar practicing before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. On February 28, 2025, acting Director Stewart rescinded former Director Vidal’s Guidance Memorandum for handling discretionary denials in inter partes review proceedings before the Board. On March 24, 2025, Chief Judge Boalick issued a Guidance Memorandum on
Earlier this year, as we discussed here, here, and here, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) proposed a number of sweeping changes to the Office’s patent fees, including a very steep set of fees for filing terminal disclaimers, later continuation applications, and three or more requests for continued examination (RCEs). The USPTO also
In a May 10, 2024, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the USPTO proposed sweeping changes in the rules governing the filing of terminal disclaimers. If the USPTO implements the proposed changes, entire patent families could be wiped out if just one claim of one patent in the family is found invalid over prior art. Patent owners could have a lot
Much like word processing with spell check and other now commonplace digital tools were once only the stuff of science fiction, artificial intelligence (AI) is quickly becoming widespread in knowledge work including law practice. IP law is no exception. The use of AI in IP law practice has practical benefits, including the potential for enhanced efficiency and lower costs in
As discussed in two of our recent blogs (here) and here), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) recently proposed substantial patent fee increases for continuing applications and terminal disclaimers. The USPTO is also proposing substantial increases for an applicant to request continued examination of an application whose claims have been rejected, but only
As discussed in our previous blog (here), the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) has proposed substantial surcharges for filing continuing applications, depending on the timing of filing. The USPTO is also proposing substantial increases for an applicant to file a terminal disclaimer. As we discuss below, these increases are likely to affect strategies for prosecuting patent