Author:
Diane Jones
October 13, 2026
A Director Discretionary Decision, designated precedential, was issued on March 18, 2026, denying institution in IPR2025-01579 between Tianma Microelectronics Co., Ltd. and LG Display Co., Ltd., involving U.S. Patent 11,251,394 B2. The decision holds that, under 35 U.S.C. § 311(a), a foreign government is not a “person” permitted to be a petitioner, or a “real party in interest” (“RPI”) of a petitioner, in an AIA proceeding, and denies institution because the petitioner failed to rebut evidence that a foreign government is its RPI.<... Read more
Author:
Richard D. Kelly
October 1, 2026
The recent ARP (Appeal Review Panel) decision in ex Parte Baurin reversed a PTAB decision reversing the examiner’s final rejection of application 17/135,529 (‘529) on the grounds of obvious type double patenting (OTDP). The examiner’s OTDP rejection relied solely on the concept of harassment if the ownership of a patent issuing on ‘529 was different from for the reference patents. The examiner rejected the ‘529 application over five patents and one pending application (a patent thicket) on OTDP even though there was no extension of the monopoly period of the references relying on the M.P.E.P. and PTO guidance documents for the concept of harassment as the sole basis for the rejection. The PTAB rebutted these arguments in its decision denying the examiner’s request for reconsideration. The PTAB did not find any case law supporting the concept that the possibility of dual ownership alone was sufficient to support a double patent infringement rejection but did cite Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd, 753 F.3d 1208 at 214 (Fed. Cir. 2014) where the Court found that a later filed and earlier expiring patent made the earlier filed and later expiring patent invalid for double patenting:<... Read more
Author:
Dorothy Jones, Ph.D.
August 21, 2026
... Read more
Author:
Matthew Hampton
August 6, 2026
The Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office (EPO Guidelines) are publicly accessible instructions on the practice and procedure to be followed in the various aspects of the examination of European patent applications and patents in accordance with the European Patent Convention (EPC) and its Implementing Regulations. The EPO Guidelines are routinely modified to reflect changes in procedure and in the application of law. The April 2026 edition entered into force on 1 April 2026, superseding the April 2025 edition.<... Read more
Author:
Xiaohua (Joyce) Guo, Ph.D.
July 20, 2026
In Intellectual Pixels Limited v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision holding claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,681,109 unpatentable as obvious.<... Read more
Author:
Diane Jones
June 30, 2026
On June 4, 2026, the PTAB issued a final written decision in a petition (IPR2025-00109, Jumio Corporation) filed against Patent 11,874,910 B2 to FaceTec, Inc., determining, in a majority opinion, that no challenged claims of claims 1-24 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a).<... Read more
June 24, 2026
The current Director of the USPTO, John Squires, has been instrumental in making changes to how the USPTO does business, literally. Right off the bat, Director Squires clarified the USPTO policies regarding Section 101 patentability in the case of advanced technologies, including blockchain, artificial intelligence and medical diagnosis. In an "Open Letter" titled "Bringing the USPTO Back to the Future," Director Squires announced that effective October 20, 2025, he will personally determine whether to institute trial proceedings rather than delegating this function to PTAB panels. This announcement is intended to restore proper respect for the Patent Office’s examination process and the presumption of validity that issued patents deserve. It is expected that these changes will favor patent owners.<... Read more
Author:
Derek Lightner, Ph.D.
April 27, 2026
In the recent appeal of U.S. Appl. No. 18/018,555 (Appeal 2026-000028), an examiner’s obviousness position was reversed by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) based on the examiner’s failure to set forth a factual basis for a modification of a primary reference to reflect a claim feature directed to dimensional characteristics of a claimed article.<... Read more
Author:
Alec C. Dorn
March 13, 2026
Ex parte Liu (PTAB December 17, 2025) (Appeal No. Appeal 2025-002084, in Application Serial No. 16/765,024) (before Yang, Boudreau, and Hardman, APJ) (opinion by Boudreau, APJ)<... Read more
Author:
Yan Cong, Ph.D.
March 12, 2026
In In re Blue Buffalo Enterprises, Inc., No. 2024-1611 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2026), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision affirming the Examiner’s obviousness rejection after rejecting Blue Buffalo’s narrow construction of the claim term “configured for”.<... Read more