USPTO
May 11, 2023
Since 2020, the USPTO has been denying requests for post-grant validity challenges based on the controversial Fintiv rule.
February 24, 2022
The US CAFC ruled that an examiner is a "person of ordinary skill in the art" and is owed an appropriate level of deference.
September 14, 2021
Fed. Cir. Nos. 20-2321-2325: The Federal Circuit clarified that, while an applicant is required to pay all the expenses of PTAB proceedings, this does not include expert witness fees.
April 20, 2021
This paper uses publicly available filing statistics and a professional survey in an attempt to gather empirical data on the work done by Canadian Patent Agents in the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) versus the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
April 3, 2020
In this article, we explain how the intellectual property offices in Canada and the United States are responding to the COVID-19 pandemic.
October 28, 2019
2019 FC 1233 – In a dispute over flax seeds, Canada's Federal Court says foreign prosecution history may be admissible under the new s. 53.1 of the Patent Act.
August 16, 2019
SCOTUS, No. 18-302 (Iancu v Brunetti): In a recent decision, the US Supreme Court abolished the longstanding ban on registering vulgar and offensive words as trademarks.
June 11, 2019
AVX Corporation v Presidio Components (Fed. Cir., 2018-1106) A case recently dismissed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) confirms that […]
May 7, 2019
Fed. Cir., 2016-2222 - CAFC affirms that a patent may be successfully defended if the patent holder can prove that the invention was conceived prior to any similar prior art.
April 30, 2019
Fed. Cir. 2017-2257 - CAFC Reaffirms: GUI That Merely Collects and Displays Data Is Not Patentable
April 18, 2019
USPTO introduces Automated Interview Requests; a new web-based tool that allows Applicants to schedule an interview with an Examiner for their pending patent application.
April 3, 2019
Hikma Pharmaceuticals v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals, SCOTUS Docket No. 18-817 - The beginning of the end for method of treatment patents?