CannabIP: U.S. Patent No. 9,987,567 B1

Cannabis IP patent

U.S. Patent No. 9,987,567 B1 issued on June 5, 2018, to inventor Ryan Delmoral Ko, of Coquitlam, British Columbia, Canada, and applicant/assignee NextLeaf Solutions Ltd., of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.  NextLeaf is an extraction and distillation processing company of cannabis material.  NextLeaf represents one of many cannabis-industry companies awaiting the country-wide legalization of cannabis in …

Continue Reading

Fed Circuit Watch: Dangers of Pro Se Representation – Failure to Understand Procedural Rules

fed circuit watch likelihood of confusion section 2(d) trademark ttab

On August 27, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a rare trademark ruling, Zheng Cai, dba Tai Chi Green Tea Inc. v. Diamond Hong, Inc.,[1] dealing with the more mundane aspects of proper filing procedures and rules of evidence.  It also served as a reminder of the dangers of USPTO applicants …

Continue Reading

Fed Circuit Watch: PTAB Error to Not Consider Arguments in Reply Brief

103 BRI fed circuit watch IPR obviousness patent Phillips

On August 27, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handed down Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,[1] in which the rules played an important role in decisions made in the case. The facts are as follows. Intellectual Ventures I owns U.S. Patent No. 5,602,831 (‘831), entitled “Optimizing packet size to eliminate …

Continue Reading

Fed Circuit Watch: Enabling Scope of Design Patent Claims Expands – Greatly

112 design Enablement fed circuit watch indefiniteness patent

In a potentially ground-breaking decision in design patent prosecution, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handed down In re Maatita,[1] on August 20, 2018. The facts are as follows.  Ron Maatita filed a design patent application with the USPTO, Serial No. 29/404,677, claiming an athletic shoe sole design. As with all design patent …

Continue Reading

Fed Circuit Watch: USPTO’s §315(b) “Real Party in Interest” Definition Too Narrow

CBM fed circuit watch IPR patent PTAB real party in interest

Inter partes reviews (IPRs) (37 C.F.R. §42.100 et seq.) may be instituted by the USPTO, at its discretion, but there are some defined statutory requirements.  On August 17, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit unsealed an opinion that was originally written on July 9, 2018, Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp.,[1] which …

Continue Reading

Fed Circuit Watch: Indexing Database Lacks Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Under §101

101 fed circuit watch patent patent eligible subject matter

On August 15, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.,[1] which represents one additional case in the §101 jurisprudence.  This particular case bears striking resemblance to the Enfish case,[2] where the Fed Circuit upheld software claims directed to a self-referential table in a database, and therefore, …

Continue Reading

IP Practicum: USPTO Proposes Patent Fee Increases for FY2019

ethics fees IP Practicum patent

On July 25, 2018, the USPTO submitted for publication a Federal Official Gazette notice of public hearing 2018-16432 pursuant to the Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC).  The notice specifies broad increases affecting patent filings and prosecution.  It was published on August 8, 2018, in the Federal Gazette. While most of the fees are in the …

Continue Reading

Fed Circuit Watch: American Rule Does Not Require Applicants to Pay USPTO Attorneys’ Fees

fed circuit watch fees patent

“Each litigant pays his own attorney’s fees, win or lose.”[1]  As such, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the American Rule by holding that 35 U.S.C. §145 does not require losing applicants to pay USPTO attorneys’ fees in NantKwest, Inc. v. Iancu,[2] in an en banc decision handed down on July 27, …

Continue Reading