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 …
Month: September 2018
Fed Circuit Watch: Dangers of Pro Se Representation – Failure to Understand Procedural Rules
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 …
CannabIP: U.S. Patent No. 9,981,203 B2
U.S. Patent No. 9,981,203 B2 issued on May 29, 2018, entitled “Rapid drying extraction targeting oil resin plant extracts.” It was issued to applicant and inventor Ahmed Shuja of San Francisco, California. Ahmed Shuja is the co-founder of OGZ Holdings, a cannabis extraction research company, and lvl Analytics, a tech analytics startup; Dr. Shuja is …
Fed Circuit Watch: PTAB Error to Not Consider Arguments in Reply Brief
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 …
Fed Circuit Watch: Enabling Scope of Design Patent Claims Expands – Greatly
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 …
Fed Circuit Watch: USPTO’s §315(b) “Real Party in Interest” Definition Too Narrow
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 …
Fed Circuit Watch: Indexing Database Lacks Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Under §101
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, …
Monsanto Hit with $289M Glyphosate Jury Verdict
On August 10, 2018, a California state jury for the first time found Monsanto’s blockbuster herbicide, ROUNDUP®, was the cause of cancer, finding the weed killer caused a plaintiff’s terminal non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and delivered to Monsanto a liability bill in the amount of $289 million. Although this blog does not normally analyze trial court decisions, …
IP Practicum: USPTO Proposes Patent Fee Increases for FY2019
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 …
Fed Circuit Watch: American Rule Does Not Require Applicants to Pay USPTO Attorneys’ Fees
“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, …