To navigate to other firm news articles, click here or on the "NEWS" button in the toolbar at the top of this page.

The PTAB recently designated a handful of decisions as precedential.​

In re Forney Industries, Inc., 127 U.S.P.Q.2d 1787 (TTAB 2018); and February 15, 2019 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

On July 1, 2019, the PTAB designated four decisions as informative.  The PTAB also published the second update to the Trial Practice Guide in July 2019.

On November 15, 2019, the Supreme Court granted cert in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc (U.S. Supreme Court docket no. 18-956).  Petitioner Google has asked the Court to consider whether copyright protection extends to a software interface, and (if so) whether, as the jury found, the petitioner’s use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use.​

On October 17, 2019, the USPTO published an update to the 2019 Revised Subject Matter Eligibility guidelines for examination of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 (2019 PEG).  The update was made in response to comments made by the public, and is intended to provide further explanation and examples.​

The USPTO has published revised subject matter eligibility guidelines for examination of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, which went into effect on January 7, 2019.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this February in Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service (Supreme Court Docket No. 17-1594).  The Court will consider whether the U.S. government is a “person” who may petition to institute an AIA trial proceeding (inter partes review, post-grant review, or covered business method review) in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and whether a Section 1498(a) action against the U.S. government constitutes being “sued for infringement.”

On February 1, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Research Corporation Technologies, Inc. (Federal Circuit docket no. 17-2088).  In this case, Research Corporation Technologies (RCT) argued that the appellants (Mylan, Breckenridge, and Alembic), who were joined to the IPR proceeding, lack standing to appeal the final written decision of the PTAB to the Federal Circuit.

2019 Firm News Archive

On April 15, 2019, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Iancu v. Brunetti (Supreme Court docket no. 18-302).

The USPTO has initiated a new pilot program for motions to amend in AIA trial proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, effective on March 15, 2019.

Precision Patent®

The PTAB has continued to be active in designating decisions as precedential.​

On June 10, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service.  In its decision, the Court held that the government is not a “person” that may file a petition for an AIA trial.

The PTAB has continued its designation of decisions as precedential.  A group of these new PTAB precedential opinions involve the application of the recent Federal Circuit decision in Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio, Inc., No. 2015-1242 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2018) to the time bars under 35 U.S.C. 315(a)(1) and (b).​

The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued two decisions in copyright cases.​

On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Iancu v. Brunetti.  In its decision, the Court held that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on federal registration of “immoral or scandalous” trademarks violates the First Amendment.

On July 31, 2019, the USPTO issued a notice of proposed rulemaking including certain changes to patent and PTAB fees.

Fildes & Outland, P.C.

The news provided on this website is intended to provide general information only and should not be construed as a legal opinion or as legal advice.  Fildes & Outland disclaims liability for any errors or omissions and readers should not take any action that relies upon the information contained in this website.  You should consult your own lawyer concerning your own situation and any specific legal questions.  This website does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship with Fildes & Outland or with any of its attorneys.

Effective August 3, 2019, the USPTO will require trademark applicants, registrants, and parties to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) proceedings whose domicile is not located within the U.S. or its territories, including Canadian trademark filers, to be represented by an attorney who is licensed to practice law in the United States.

The PTAB has designated two additional decisions as precedential.​

On January 22, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court docket no. 17-1229), a patent case involving the meaning of “on sale” in Section 102(a)(1) of the Patent Law as enacted in the America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011.

On May 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, a case arising in bankruptcy and involving the rejection of a trademark licensing agreement.