Category:Patents

1
Upcoming Patent and Design Fee Changes, Including Important Excess Claim Fee Modifications: Australia
2
3
Federal Circuit Clarifies Scope of Estoppel Provision and Provides Guidance on “Patentably Distinct” Claims
4
Historic 27th WIPO Treaty: WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge
5
Federal Circuit Relaxes Standard for Design Patent Obviousness Challenges
6
USPTO Considering Changes to Enforceability of Patents Subject to a Terminal Disclaimer
7
Federal Circuit Finds Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction Over Patent Owner Through Amazon APEX Agreement
8
Guidance on use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools in Practice Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office
9
Full Court Parks Trial Judge’s Decision in Carpark Patent Fight
10
New USPTO Guidelines on AI-Assisted Inventions Leave Many Questions Unanswered

Upcoming Patent and Design Fee Changes, Including Important Excess Claim Fee Modifications: Australia

IP Australia has updated its practice for the calculation and processing of excess claim fees. Currently, excess claim fees are charged at acceptance, on the basis of the final claim set as accepted, regardless of the number of claims examined during examination. Therefore, the applicant can often have a large claim set examined but avoid excess claim fees by amending to reduce the claim set prior to acceptance.

Read More

Federal Circuit Confirms Application of the Pre-AIA on-Sale bar to AIA Patents

On August 12, 2024, the United States Federal Circuit held that the enactment of the America Invents Act did not constitute a foundational change in the on-sale bar provision under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), finding the sale of products made using a secret process triggers the on-sale bar under pre-AIA precedent.1 The Court therefore affirmed the International Trade Commission’s invalidation of Celanese’s patents because Celanese sold products made using the patented process more than one year before the effective filing dates.2

Read More

Federal Circuit Clarifies Scope of Estoppel Provision and Provides Guidance on “Patentably Distinct” Claims

On 26 July 2024, the Federal Circuit entered its decision in SoftView LLC, v. Apple Inc.1 holding that patent owner estoppel2 applies to newly presented and amended claims, but does not apply to issued claims. The Federal Circuit also confirmed that patent owner estoppel prevents a patent applicant from later obtaining a patent claim that is “not patentably distinct” from a finally refused or cancelled claim, but that patent owner estoppel does not apply to defending issued, unamended claims.

Read More

Historic 27th WIPO Treaty: WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge

WIPO member states have adopted a new Treaty related to intellectual property, genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, marking the 27th WIPO treaty, and the first in over a decade.

Read More

Federal Circuit Relaxes Standard for Design Patent Obviousness Challenges

On 21 May 2024, the Federal Circuit overturned the Rosen-Durling test used to assess non-obviousness of design patents. In LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, the Court en banc ruled the same conditions for patentability that apply to utility patents apply to design patents, specifically holding the obviousness rationale articulated in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), will now apply to design patents. LKQ Corp. v. GM Glob. Tech. Operations LLC, No. 2021-2348, 2024 WL 2280728, at 1 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2024) (en banc).

Read More

USPTO Considering Changes to Enforceability of Patents Subject to a Terminal Disclaimer

On 10 May 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking aimed at changing the current practices surrounding terminal disclaimers. The proposed change could have substantial effects on the enforceability of patents that are subject to a terminal disclaimer.

Read More

Federal Circuit Finds Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction Over Patent Owner Through Amazon APEX Agreement

On 2 May 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the Federal Circuit) entered its decision in SnapRays, dba SnapPower v. Lighting Defense Group,1 holding the submission of an Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) Agreement against infringing third-party product listings is a “purposefully directed extra-judicial patent enforcement activit[y]” subjecting the patent owner to personal jurisdiction in the alleged infringer’s home state.2

Read More

Guidance on use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools in Practice Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office

On 11 April 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published guidance (referred to herein as the Guidance) on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) based tools, including generative AI, in practice. The USPTO recognizes the benefits of AI and while practitioners are not presently required to disclose whether AI is used as a drafting tool there are a variety of duties that arise with its use. The Guidance outlines the current USPTO policies and illustrates how these rules interact with the use of AI tools. Below, we will highlight different uses of AI tools and provide an overview of potential risks the USPTO discusses in the Guidance.

Read More

Full Court Parks Trial Judge’s Decision in Carpark Patent Fight

In a recent update to a lengthy battle over car parking technology used by the City of Melbourne, SARB Management Group Pty Ltd (SARB) has scored a partial win over rival company Vehicle Monitoring Systems (VMS) on appeal in Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. 

Read More

New USPTO Guidelines on AI-Assisted Inventions Leave Many Questions Unanswered

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently issued what it labeled as Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions [Docket No. PTO-P-2023-0043].1 Despite its name, the document provides little in the way of certainty that one could not garner from reviewing recent precedent addressing the issue of artificial intelligence (AI) inventions. To begin with, the USPTO warns that its “guidance does not constitute substantive rulemaking and does not have the force and effect of law.”2 Rather, “[t]he guidance sets out agency policy with respect to the USPTO’s interpretation of the inventorship requirements of the Patent Act in view of” controlling jurisprudence, but “[r]ejections will continue to be based on the substantive law, and it is those rejections that are appealable to the PTAB and the courts.”3 Adding to the confusion attendant to the actual purpose thereof, the guidelines admonish that, “[t]o the extent that earlier guidance from the USPTO, including certain sections of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. . . is inconsistent with the guidance set forth” in such guidelines, “USPTO personnel are to follow these guidelines,” and “[t]he MPEP will be updated in due course.”4

Read More

Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.