In a precedential order issued 22 June 2026, USPTO Director John A. Squires took the rare step of initiating sua sponte Director Review across three inter partes review (IPR) proceedings to provide meaningful guidance on when “exceptional circumstances” justify extending the 30-day deadline to seek Director Review of an institution decision.
Read MoreTaylor Swift has long been a household name, but in recent years she has become a commercial powerhouse. It is this commercial power that landed her in hot water with the release of her album ‘The Life of a Showgirl’.
Read MoreEarlier this year, Chief Judge Boalick issued guidance on the USPTO’s recission of “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation,” explaining how the Fintiv factors should be addressed going forward. Shortly after, Acting Director Stewart issued a memorandum titled “Interim Processes for PTAB Workload Management” that provided additional non-Fintiv discretionary factors that should be assessed to determine whether discretionary denial of an IPR petition is appropriate.
Read MoreThe Federal Circuit recently resolved a split among the district courts whether patent infringement defendants who bring inter partes review (IPR) challenges are estopped from raising new prior art challenges in a co-pending district court litigation. While some district courts had earlier found estoppel to have broad effect, and thus prevent challenges based on products on sale or public use, the Federal Circuit’s decision means that estoppel is limited only to challenges based on patents or printed publications, opening the door to use patents and publications to provide evidence of what subject matter was “on sale” or “in public use.”
Read MoreOn 19 January 2025 the USPTO enacted a new Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) size fee. A new IDS size fee, codified under 37 C.F.R. 1.17(v), is accrued for any pending application when the number of cumulative references cited by the applicant exceeds each of 50, 100, and 200 references (hereinafter, “IDS Size Fee”).
Read MoreIn the recent decision of Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected the long-standing approach concerning the interpretation of the domestic-industry requirement under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The complainant, an American company importing eyelash extensions from international manufacturers, which alleged that certain other importers were infringing on its patents.
Read MoreThe United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced increased patent and trademark fees effective 19 and 18 January 2025, respectively.
Read MoreOn 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 MoreOn 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 MoreOn 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 MoreCopyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.