The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced even further extensions under the CARES Act. In their notice dated June 29, 2020 sets forth certain fees and filings for small and micro entities due between March 27th and September 29th will be considered timely if submitted by September 30, 2020.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced further extensions under the CARES Act for small and micro entities. The USPTO’s CARES Act Notice dated April 28, 2020 explains that the time to file certain documents or fees by small and micro entities “that would have been deemed timely filed, if filed by June 1, 2020 … will now be deemed timely filed if filed by July 1, 2020.”
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced further extensions under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act). The USPTO’s Notice of Extended Waiver of Patent-Related Timing Deadlines and Notice of Extended Waiver of Trademark-Related Timing Deadlines explain that the time to file certain documents or fees is being extended to June 1, 2020 for certain deadlines occurring on March 27, 2020 through May 31, 2020 – provided that the delay “was due to the COVID-19 outbreak.”
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced the availability of extensions under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act). The USPTO’s Notice of Waiver of Patent-Related Timing Deadlines and Notice of Waiver of Trademark-Related Timing Deadlines explain that the time to file certain documents or fees is being extended 30 days for certain deadlines occurring on March 27, 2020 through April 30, 2020. The late document or fee must include the “statement that the delay in filing or payment was due to the COVID-19 outbreak.”
In particular, the statement must make clear that a person “associated with the filing or fee was personally affected by the COVID-19 outbreak, including, without limitation, through office closures, cash flow interruptions, inaccessibility of files or other materials, travel delays, personal or family illness, or similar circumstances, such that the outbreak materially interfered with timely filing or payment” (emphasis added).
Infringement was recently affirmed in an interesting design patent case where the defendant offered no prior art, nor proffered any jury instructions. In Hafco Foundry and Machine Co., Inc. v. GMS Mine Repair and Maintenance, Inc., defendant GMS argued “the jury should have been instructed that ‘small differences between the accused and the claimed design’ will avoid infringement.” Such argument carried little weight as the Federal Circuit affirmed “the patented and accused designs need not be identical in order for design patent infringement to be found…. The controlling inquiry is how the ordinary observer would perceive the article.” Not a revolutionary holding, but a good reminder of the value of design patents (and the importance of thorough lawyering).
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a determination of inequitable conduct in GS Cleantech Corp. v. Adkins Energy LLC. Although inventors had been warned of the on-sale bar (requiring an invention not be sold or offered for sale more than one year before filing), the inventors initially did not disclose a relevant offer. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusions that: plaintiff CleanTech knew the offer threatened patenting and took steps to hide it from the USPTO; the inventors and plaintiff’s patent firm (“firm”) withheld evidence and made false representations to the USPTO; CleanTech and the firm attempted to coerce support for their false representations; the inventors and the firm prepared a “patently false” declaration; and they failed to correct the false declaration. Notably, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusion that “[t]he only reasonable inference is that [the firm] believed the [I]nventors had made an offer and, … they chose advocacy over candor.”
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed in Blackbird Tech v. Health In Motion an award of $360k in attorney fees against a patent troll “to deter future abusive litigation.” Non-practicing entity Blackbird sued Health In Motion (HIM) alleging that HIM’s exercise equipment infringed Blackbird’s U.S. Patent No. 6,705,976. Despite offering “nuisance value settlements” ranging from $80k to zero, Blackbird continued litigation for more than nineteen months. The Federal Circuit affirmed the attorney fees award because “[t]o hold otherwise would, in effect, cause [HIM] to make the untenable choice between: (1) submitting to Blackbird’s settlement demands–small as they may be; or (2) risking non-reimbursement of attorney fees accrued in defending themselves against Blackbird’s unmeritorious claims.”
In the post-Mayo/Alice era, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been decidedly more challenging for internet applications, medical diagnostic methods, and other inventions deemed to be laws of nature, natural phenomenon or abstract ideas. Mechanical inventions were largely immune to Mayo/Alice challenges – until now. In American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed ineligibility under § 101 in invalidating claims directed to manufacturing a drive shaft. The court indicated that “the patent claims do not describe a specific method for applying Hooke’s law [and] simply state that the [driveshaft] liner should be tuned to dampen certain vibrations” and thus amount to simply stating a law of nature. Judge Moore voiced her concerns in a dissent accusing the majority of ignoring the second step of the Alice/Mayo test, stating that “[t[he majority’s validity goulash is troubling and inconsistent with the patent statute and precedent.”
In Curver Luxembourg, SARL v. Home Expressions Inc., a case of first impression, the Federal Circuit recently held that claim language can indeed limit the scope of a design patent. Curver has a design patent that, although entitled “Pattern for a Chair,” merely illustrates “a design pattern disembodied from any article of manufacture.” Curver sued Home Expressions arguing their baskets incorporated a similar pattern and infringed. The Federal Circuit instead held that claim language can limit the scope of a design patent because “long-standing precedent, unchallenged regulation, and agency practice all consistently support the view that design patents are granted only for a design applied to an article of manufacture, and not a design per se.”
The Toro Company sought inter parties review of an MTD Products patent. While the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) knocked the patent out holding the claims obvious, the PTAB determined the claim term “mechanical control assembly” was not a means-plus-function term subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. In MTD Products Inc. v. Iancu, the Federal Circuit disagreed. The court remanded the case noting the term is a “nonce term” that is not sufficiently structural to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The court further noted the specification does not demonstrate that the patentee intended to define the nonce term as the “ZTR control assembly” of the preferred embodiment.