NEWS
US v Arthrex
Supreme Court Decision on PTAB Appointments
In U.S. v. Arthrex, the Supreme Court found that PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeals Board) should have been nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
But instead of invalidating thousands of PTAB decisions, the Court held that PTAB determinations are reviewable by the USPTO Director.
What Changed After the US v. Arthrex Decision?
From our perspective, nothing much has changed. We continue to have the same system we’ve had for decades.
PTAB rulings have always been reviewable as a matter of right. They can be reviewed by the DC District Court, by the Federal Circuit, and theoretically, by the Supreme Court. The big change is that they are now also reviewable by the USPTO director.
Experience With PTAB Judges in Patent Litigation
Our experience (when we’ve both won and lost) is that the PTAB judges are really good at what they do. They understand the technology, and are extremely well versed in patent law. There are certainly biases from time to time. However, there’s no reason to believe that the PTAB judges would be less biased if appointed by the president and approved by the senate.
Fish IP Promo video
A little promotional video featuring our office building at Main and Jamboree in Irvine CA.
The video is 3D, and the hi-rise buildings are 3D objects. But the surrounding buildings, trees and clouds are flat, 2D objects placed in the 3D scene, so the effect is like the camera moving around props in a diorama. Hope you enjoy it.
Patents on Transactions Using Cryptocurrency: Square versus PayPal
One of the challenges of patenting technology related to blockchain is that the subject matter is likely directed to one of the judicial exceptions (i.e., abstract ideas) that are not patent eligible.
Moreover, the subject matter likely falls within one of USPTO’s enumerated groupings of abstract ideas, i.e., “certain methods of organizing human activity” (e.g., commercial interactions).
To be patent eligible, the claims would need to include additional limitations that either integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. This article offers insight on future developments in the fintech industry and on patenting blockchain-related technology in the cryptocurrency space.
This brief references an article: Patents on Transactions Using Cryptocurrency: Square versus PayPal
Dr. Shuo Liu, Ph.D., Esq., is one of Fish IP Law’s attorneys.
Patent Prosecution Highway- Phase II
Brazil Approves Phase II of its PPH Program
The Brazilian IP Office (Instituto Nacional de Propriedade Industrial – INPI) approved phase II of its Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) program. The program commenced on January 1, 2021.
The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) Program
The PPH program is a bilateral agreement between the patent offices of different countries (“member countries”). It allows for expedited examination of patent applications if a final ruling from a member country’s patent office has allowed at least one claim. That means a US patent applicant with allowed claims can file a corresponding patent application in Brazil under the PPH program to expedite examination in Brazil.
Phase II Expands Request Allowances
Phase II of Brazil’s PPH program expands the threshold number of PPH requests allowed per year. It also expands the number of PPH requests per application per week. Phase II no longer requires that the application be filed firstly with INPI. However, it also removes the ability to appeal a denied PPH request.
For More Information
For more information on expediting your US or foreign patent applications via the PPH program, contact FISH IP today.
New Way Of Enforcing Copyright Against Infringers
In late December, 2020, the Consolidated Appropriations Act established the Copyright Claims Board (CCB).
In simple terms, the CCB is like a small claims court for copyright cases. It gives copyright owners an easier and more cost-efficient way of ensuring their rights, without necessarily using an attorney, and without other expenses of federal court litigation.
There are limitations. Damages cannot exceed $30,000, defendants can opt out of the process, and attorney’s fees can only be obtained under “extraordinary” circumstances, and with a ceiling of $5,000. There is an appeal process.
One feature of potentially great interest is that the CCB will have the right to bar claimants for up to 12 months, for repeatedly filing frivolous or harassing claims.
For more information on this topic, see our Copyright Infringement FAQ page.
New Trademark and TTAB Fee Schedule Effective January 2, 2021
Several trademark fees have increased starting January 2nd. The most notable fee increases are:
(1) TEAS standard filing fee is increased from $275 to $350,
(2) Combined §8 and §15 declarations from $325 to $425 per class, and
(3) Combined §8 declaration and §9 renewals from $425 to $525 per class.
The current USPTO trademark fee schedule can be found in the following link: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule#Trademark%20Fees.
The Inventive Step in Chinese Patent Law
China is becoming an increasingly attractive patent filing destination for foreign companies. But foreign counsels are often confused by the country’s inventive step requirement. Chinese patent examiners often use abstract legal terms, such as “prominent substantive features” and “notable progress,” in their analysis.
This article, The Inventive Step in Chinese Patent Law Compared With the U.S. Non-Obviousness Standard, by Fish IP Law attorney Shuo Liu, Ph.D., Esq., provides an overview of the inventive step requirement in China, in comparison with the non-obviousness standard in the United States.