Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In 2013, the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) adopted a new policy under which any party commencing a de novo proceeding challenging a PTO decision would be responsible to pay a pro rata share of the salaries of the government attorneys working on the matter, based on a new interpretation of language that has appeared in the Patent Act for 175 years — and more recently was included in the Lanham Act as well. That language requires the plaintiff seeking de novo review to pay “all expenses of the proceedings,” win or lose. However, the term expenses had always in practice been construed (until recently) to mean only lesser costs — not attorneys’ fees. On Dec. 11, 2019, the Supreme Court rejected the PTO’s new interpretation of the Patent Act in Peter v. NantKwest, Case No. 18-801, slip op., which held that the American Rule, a centuries-old principle under which each party bears its own attorneys’ fees, does apply to this statute. The Court further concluded that the actual language of the statute itself simply does not support shifting fees.
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
Blockchain Domains: New Developments for Brand Owners
By John McElwaine
Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.
AI Can Facilitate Innovation, But It Can Also Become a Potent Patent Killer
By Michael K. Friedland
When is an inventor not an inventor? It’s when the inventor isn’t human. So, if a non-human inventor can’t, in the eyes of patent law, be an inventor, what role can the non-human inventor have in the patent system? The answer is straightforward. Even though it can’t create, it can destroy.
Patent Your Trade Secrets In Wake of Noncompete Ban
By Daniel E. Rose
While it may be growing more difficult to protect business information with the FTC’s noncompete ban, patents can provide strong protection over technical innovations, regardless of whether the inventor stays with the company or leaves.
Key Takeaways from the Latest USPTO Guidance on AI
By James DeCarlo
The April Guidance, which supplements prior guidance issued in February, seeks to remind practitioners of existing rules and to educate them on potential risks associated with artificial intelligence tool use, allowing practitioners to mitigate these risks.