The United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) has issued a Notice of a public roundtable, and is soliciting comments involving the topic of counterfeiting. The USPTO has indicated in the Notice that it is “working across government and with the private sector to address counterfeiting.” The roundtable is scheduled to take place on […]
The United States Patent and Trademark Office announces a new option for Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (also referred to as the “TTAB”) petitioners to file a petition for cancellation via the Office’s new system, the TTAB Center, in order to initiate a cancellation proceeding. A “cancellation proceeding” is a TTAB proceeding in which a […]
On March 26, 2025, the Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a Memorandum to all Patent Trial and Appeal Board Judges (“PTAB Judges”). According to the Memorandum, decisions on whether to institute an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) or Post-Grant Review (“PGR”) […]
On February 28, 2025, The United States Patent and Trademark Office indicated that a previous Memorandum addressing discretionary denial procedures is now rescinded. The Memorandum was titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in America Invents Act Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation,” and was dated June 21, 2022. Parties to post-grant proceedings may now […]
According to United States Patent and Trademark Office’s website, a term of a patent has been changed by Congress a number of times since 1790: Initially, under the 1790 Patent Act the term could not exceed 14 years. In 1836, Congress passed the Patent Act (5. Stat 117, 119, 5) which amended the statute to […]
The Solicitor General, on behalf of the United States, petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari to review the judgments of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the following two cases: Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. and Polaris Innovations Limited v. Kingston […]