COVID-19: EUIPO extends all office deadlines; CJEU restricts operations but time limits unchanged
With the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic being seen in all facets of our lives, European IP registries are also seeking to manage these exceptional circumstances.
On Monday 16 March 2020, the Executive Director of the EUIPO issued a decision extending all time limits for EU trade marks and designs expiring between 9 March 2020 and 30 April 2020, that affect all parties before the Office, to 1 May 2020. Similarly, the EPO has announced that all deadlines for patent matters are extended until 17 April 2020.
Read MoreNew workshare arrangement aims to reduce time to obtain Mexican counterpart patent protection
The USPTO and the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) have announced a new worksharing arrangement that aims to make it easier and faster to obtain a Mexican patent for those who have already obtained a corresponding U.S. patent. The agreement allows IMPI to leverage USPTO search and examination results in an effort to significantly reduce the review time of a Mexican patent application.
Read MoreShifting Gears on the Presumption of Nexus for Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness
The Federal Circuit’s decision last week in Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC provided clarity regarding the nexus requirement of secondary considerations of non-obviousness, particularly with respect to whether a patentee is entitled to a presumption of nexus. [1] Despite the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) finding that the cited art disclosed all the limitations of the challenged patent—which claimed a bicycle chainring for engagement with a drivetrain—and that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the cited prior art, the PTAB found that, based on an analysis of secondary considerations, the claims of the challenged patent were not obvious. [2] The Federal Circuit focused in on the comparison of the patentee’s product and the scope of the challenged claims. [3] In doing so, the panel found that “[a] patent claim is not co-extensive with a product that includes a ‘critical’ un-claimed feature . . . that materially impacts the product’s functionality.” [4]
Read MorePOP Provides Clarity Regarding Level of Proof for Printed Publications Before the PTAB
The PTAB’s Precedential Opinion Panel (“POP”) issued a decision in Hulu, LLC v. Sound View Innovations, LLC, IPR2018-01039, on Friday, December 20, 2019. The issue at hand: “What is required for a petitioner to establish that an asserted reference qualifies as ‘printed publication’ at the institution stage?” Hulu v. Sound View, IPR2018-01039, Paper 29 at *2 (P.T.A.B. December 20, 2019).
This decision provides clarity on an issue that was often addressed inconsistently across panels regarding the “requirements for institution involving issues of public accessibility of an asserted ‘printed publication.’” Id. at 2.
Read MoreIn the Weeds: Key Intellectual Property Takeaways for the Cannabis Industry
Cannabis is a rapidly evolving field with 33 states and the District of Columbia having passed laws broadly legalizing some form of medicinal or recreational use. Of those states, eleven and the District of Columbia have adopted the broadest form of legalization: recreational use. General trends of decriminalization and legalization of cannabis, at the state level, may encourage future legalization at the federal level as well. As with any other high-growth opportunity, business investment in cannabis is on the rise, and intellectual property is a vital concern. Below are five intellectual property takeaways to consider for cannabis-related endeavors.
Read MoreUnconstitutionality of PTAB judges corrected by Federal Circuit decision
In a Halloween decision, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. et al., an appeal from IPR2017-00275. Without wading into the technical merits of the decision, the three judge panel of Judges Moore, Reyna, and Chen, issued a decision that, at first glance, sent tremors through those who practice before the PTAB in AIA-based post-grant review proceedings: finding the appointment of PTAB judges unconstitutional.
Read MoreA Win is a Win!
B.E. Technology LLC v. Facebook, Inc., Appeal No. 18-2356 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 9, 2019) identifies what it means to win in a case. More particularly, the Federal Circuit explained how to determine whether a party is “the prevailing party.” B.E. Technology (“B.E.”) brought a patent infringement suit in district court against Facebook and the case was stayed pending inter partes review. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board ultimately held the claims of the patent in question to be unpatentable, which was confirmed on appeal.
Read MoreDon’t B Late; Federal Circuit Interprets the B Delay Calculation
Mayo Foundation v. Iancu reads more like an arithmetic problem than a Federal Circuit decision. The reason is the case involves the Patent Term Adjustment Act (PTA) (see 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)). PTA determinations require calculating how many days of delay, from the effective filing date to the Notice of Allowance, are attributable to the applicant and how many to the PTO. Under one PTA scenario, the applicant is entitled to an adjusted term, recovering every day the application is pending beyond three years past the effective filing date for the balance of delay attributable to the PTO. This is called a “B Delay” (§154(b)1)(B)). However, the B Delay is subject to several exclusions. The disputed exclusion in Mayo concerned a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) of the application, which Mayo filed before the PTO declared an interference.
Read MoreIPR of pre-AIA patent not an unconstitutional taking
In a notable, albeit not surprising, U.S. Federal Circuit decision today, the panel in Celgene Corp. v. Peter confirmed that an inter partes review finding of unpatentability of a pre-AIA patent is not an unconstitutional taking. (slip op. 2018-1171 (July 30, 2019)).
Noting an opening in the recent Supreme Court decision in Oil States, the Federal Circuit deemed the circumstances exceptional as their basis for review of an issue not before the PTAB in the underlying proceeding. The panel reasoned that the proceeding being “curative” in nature, and the approximately forty year period of time in which PTAB proceedings have existed subjecting granted patents to potential cancellations for that duration weighted against any unconstitutionality.
Read More