Podcasts about trademark office uspto

[powerpresss] My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 175 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Bruce Dearling, patent attorney and partner at Hepworth Browne in the UK, and we talk about how non-technical features must be considered when assessing inventive step of patents at least according to recent decisions of the UK supreme court and the Unified Patent Court. Profile of Bruce Dearling UK Supreme Court Emotional Perception AI Limited UPC Abbot vs Sinocare But before we jump into this interesting interview, I have news for you: On May 20, 2026, the Swiss Federal Council adopted the fully revised Patent Ordinance, which will enter into force on January 1, 2027, together with the revised Patent Act. In the future, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property will prepare a mandatory search report for each application; applicants can choose between a partially examined version and a full examination that assesses novelty and inventive step. The full examination costs an additional 300 Swiss francs, and renewal fees will increase by a total of eight percent over the 20-year term. On May 19, 2026, Asus entered into a licensing agreement with the Wi-Fi multimode patent pool managed by Sisvel, thereby ending all ongoing infringement proceedings. Sisvel bundles standard-essential patents in the pool from, among others, Atlantia, ETRI, and Mitsubishi Electric. On May 18, 2026, the UPC Local Chamber in Düsseldorf rejected Align Technology's application for a preliminary injunction against its Chinese competitor Angelalign. Angelalign may continue to sell its clear aligners within the UPC jurisdiction. Our partners Dirk Schulz, Ulrich Storz, and Wanze Zhang, together with Arnold Ruess, successfully represented Angelalign. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced midweek that, since October of last year, it has invalidated or is seeking to invalidate approximately 10,500 trademark applications and registrations in eleven administrative orders. Reasons include forged attorney signatures and the fabrication of non-existent filing requirements. This stems from ongoing abuse of the U.S. trademark system, primarily by non-U.S. applicants, which can lead to conflicts with validly registered trademarks for legitimate businesses. On May 12, 2026, the British Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision that would have required Nokia to grant interim licenses for video coding patents. The court found that Nokia's license offer to the Taiwanese manufacturers Acer and Asus had already been made on RAND terms. In May, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief in the ongoing Corteva v. Inari litigation, expressing antitrust concerns regarding certain patent practices in the field of plant breeding. This marks the first time the agency has actively intervened in a biopharmaceutical patent dispute with implications for seed innovations. Episode 175 of the IP Fridays podcast was a conversation I will not forget quickly. My guest Bruce Dearling, partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK and a patent attorney for 36 years, took a case through every level of the British court system up to the Supreme Court and, in doing so, fundamentally changed patent law for AI inventions in the UK. The case is called Emotional Perception, and its effects reach well beyond British borders. Below I summarize the key points from our conversation. The full episode is available at IP Fridays. A. What Is the Emotional Perception Case About? The underlying invention concerns artificial neural networks. Specifically, it relates to a method of closing what is called the semantic gap at the output of a neural network. That sounds abstract, but the idea is straightforward: a neural network always produces an output that does not fully correspond to what a human would actually expect or feel. Closing that gap brings the system closer to human perception and human expectations. Bruce Dearling drafted this application himself and filed it at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The Office rejected it as excluded subject matter, characterizing it as essentially a computer program as such. The legal basis for that rejection was the Aerotel decision from 2006. The case then went to the High Court, which found in favor of the applicant. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. Then the UK Supreme Court stepped in and changed everything. B. The Aerotel Test and Its Flaws Since 2006, the Aerotel test had been the standard British method for assessing whether an invention falls within the excluded categories under patent law. It was a four-step approach: construe the claim, identify the actual contribution the invention makes to human knowledge, ask whether that contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter, and finally check whether the contribution is technical in nature. The problem Dearling described in our conversation is that Aerotel reverses the logical order of the analysis. You start with the contribution and only then ask about the exclusions under Article 52 EPC. The UK Supreme Court described Aerotel in its judgment as “unsound law” and overturned it. The EPO’s Technical Boards of Appeal had previously called Aerotel “disingenuous,” which at the time led to a public dispute between the British courts and the Boards. With the Emotional Perception ruling, that conflict has now been resolved in favor of harmonization with the EPO. C. What the UK Supreme Court Decided The Supreme Court made two central findings. First, the exclusion of computer programs “as such” is overcome as soon as a claim includes any piece of hardware. It does not matter whether that is a processor, a memory module, or any other component. The threshold is deliberately low. Dearling described this as the “any hardware” approach, which aligns fully with the EPO’s position following G1/19. Second, and in Dearling’s assessment the more important finding: when assessing inventive step, the invention must be considered as a whole. The Court introduced what it called an “intermediate step,” an analytical stage in which the interactions between all features of a claim are examined before the question of inventive step is addressed. Non-technical features cannot simply be struck out if they contribute to the overall technical effect of the invention. D. Inventive Step: The Intermediate Step This is the heart of the judgment. In EPO practice, Dearling said, it happens regularly that examiners strike through features they consider non-technical and thereby fail to assess the invention’s inventive step correctly. A recent Technical Board of Appeal decision, T 1249/22, already criticized this approach: a claim directed at a technical solution to a problem can be patentable even if the underlying problem is non-technical in nature. Dearling recalled a remark made by a Board of Appeal member at a hearing he attended years ago: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” That quote stayed with him because it names a structural problem that the intermediate step now addresses directly. The British method for assessing inventive step is the Pozzoli test, which differs from the EPO’s problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court explicitly retained Pozzoli because the problem-solution approach, in its view, is structurally infected with hindsight reasoning: you already know the invention, you work backwards to formulate an objective technical problem, and then you ask whether it would have been obvious for the skilled person to arrive at precisely that solution. Dearling sees this as a source of unfairness toward genuine inventions. E. Alignment with the Unified Patent Court In April 2025, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision in Abbott v. Sinocare (APP_000000901/2025, judgment of 17 April 2025). Dearling pointed out that this decision uses language and reasoning strikingly similar to the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling of February 2025. That is significant because the UPC is bound neither by UK courts nor by the EPO. The overlap suggests voluntary convergence. Dearling reported a conversation with a person close to the EPO, whom he did not name, who used the word “permissive” to describe the UK Supreme Court’s approach and indicated that the EPO might move toward it. Whether and how quickly that happens remains to be seen. What is clear is that the UPC, as the new European patent court, is setting its own standards, and the question of how to handle non-technical features in inventive step assessment is now being asked at multiple levels simultaneously. F. Implications for the EPO and Practice The EPO is not directly bound by the ruling. It is an administrative body, not a court. Dearling is nonetheless optimistic that change is coming. On one hand, external pressure is building: when the UK Supreme Court and the UPC articulate similar principles, convergence becomes hard to resist. On the other hand, Article 27.1 TRIPS requires all contracting states to make patents available in all fields of technology. Examiners routinely striking non-technical features from AI claims and rejecting them on that basis sits uncomfortably with that obligation. For the underlying application in the Emotional Perception case, the ruling has a pointed consequence. The Supreme Court did not grant the patent itself; it referred the matter back to the UKIPO for reconsideration under the intermediate step. The Office’s subsequent response was, in Dearling’s words, unconvincing. He suspects the Office is attempting to reintroduce the Aerotel test through the back door. As a last resort, he has not excluded a judicial review, a procedure that does not simply challenge the substantive decision but holds the Comptroller General of Patents to account for whether the Office is deliberately circumventing the Supreme Court’s direction on the intermediate step. That is, as Dearling put it, “a nuclear option,” but one he would not rule out if the evidence in the file already suggests the Office is in contempt of court. There is also an international dimension. Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office launched a public consultation shortly after the ruling, asking whether Singapore should adopt the Emotional Perception approach into national law. That is British soft power operating in real time within the Commonwealth. G. Three Takeaways for Patent Practitioners At the end of our conversation I asked Bruce Dearling to distill the most important practical points. His first takeaway: make sure the claim contains hardware. This applies not only to UK and European applications but is simply good drafting hygiene. Without hardware in the claim, the application remains exposed. The second takeaway concerns the description. Anyone filing an AI invention needs to explain clearly which function is achieved by which piece of hardware, circuit, or software. Not as boilerplate, but as a complete technical account that describes the real-world effects. Dearling’s experience is that practitioners who write the claim first and fill in the description afterward run into trouble. The third takeaway emerged from the conversation itself: how the EPO assesses inventive step for AI inventions is not a settled question. It is worth following the development of UPC case law and any shifts in EPO practice closely. Anyone advising on AI patent applications today needs to know these arguments. H. Conclusion The UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling is not a British footnote. It has declared the Aerotel test dead, introduced the intermediate step that brings non-technical features back into the inventive step analysis, and set off a convergence movement that is already visible at the UPC and still pending at the EPO. For everyone working in AI patent practice, whether in prosecution, examination, or counseling, this ruling is required reading. Rolf Claessen: Our interview guest on IP Fridays podcast is Bruce Dearling. He has been in the IP field and a patent attorney for 36 years and is partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK. Thank you very much for being on the podcast. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure, Rolf. Thank you for inviting me. Rolf Claessen: All right. We just met at the INTA annual meeting in London. And you talked about the UK Supreme Court case where you were involved. And the core questions were whether non-technical features would be considered when assessing inventive step of patents. Can you briefly summarize this case? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit more than that. It started — I actually wrote the case. And I prosecuted it through the patent office. The patent office rejected the case for being excluded subject matter. So pretty much the excluded subject matter provisions in the UK are nearly identical. They’re as near as practical to the language of the EPC, so those of the European Patent Office — Article 52.2. But again, they apply as such. The actual technology relates to artificial neural networks. And the invention related to a very clever way of what is termed closing the semantic gap at the output of the neural network. So that means that in a neural network, there is always a discrepancy between the output of the neural network in terms of what it’s telling you you should be thinking essentially, and what reality is. So if you can close the semantic gap, then you align the neural network or the artificial intelligence system to better reflect human knowledge or human reactions and human expectations. So that’s really what the invention is about. There’s no point in going into too much detail with it — that’s the way it is. It’s very clever. So the UKIPO rejected this because they said it was essentially a computer program excluded from patentability as such. And they used a decision which is called Aerotel, which has been around since 2006. And that decision has caused considerable consternation and tension between the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal and the UK courts. Aerotel was described as being essentially disingenuous by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal. And the UK courts pushed back and said, you don’t know what you’re talking about. So that’s where it fell apart. So that’s where they rejected it for essentially being a computer program as such, possibly with a bit of business methods thrown in as well. But let’s leave that for the time being. So the case then went to the High Court and at the High Court, we won. The judge said, actually, it’s not a computer program. Neural networks aren’t computers. They’re not programs themselves. There’s more to them than that. And the invention as claimed is not excluded from patentability as such. The UKIPO obviously weren’t very happy about that because they liked their Aerotel case and so they appealed it. And they appealed it on several grounds, including a new one, which was that it was a mathematical method. The Court of Appeal decided that the UKIPO was right and that we were wrong, so we lost the case. So we then went to the Supreme Court. Well, actually, they denied us an ability to go to the Supreme Court. The court said no appeal. We went — actually, no, I think there is a bigger issue here — because we realized, or I realized at that point, that the work that we were doing was much broader than this. It requires real consideration of what an invention is at a fundamental level. So not only exclusions, but how inventive step is applied. And these issues were built into the case from the very beginning. And they sort of — I wouldn’t say crept up on the court as we went through — but they became more and more prominent to the extent that ultimately, when we made an application to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court went, yeah, we’ve got some issues here. We want to hear the full arguments on why this is not excluded from patentability, why Aerotel is potentially bad and how we more or less try to align ourselves with the European Patent Office. So that’s essentially what happened. And the Supreme Court hearing was last July. It took them the thick end of eight months to come out with a decision, which was issued in early February, at which point the entire legal landscape in the UK changed because they said we were right. The Patent Office doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Aerotel is bad. It’s unsound. That’s what they described it as — unsound law. It needs to be removed and we’re going to harmonize with the European Patent Office. So before I — I’m just going on a bit of a rant here, standing on my soapbox telling you what you already know. But the Aerotel test essentially was — it was a four-step test, past tense. So you firstly had to construe the claim. That’s pretty straightforward. Then you actually had to identify the actual contribution. This is what they said — identify the contribution. Really in this aspect, you’re asking what, as a matter of substance rather than form, the inventor has added to human knowledge. So that’s what they said the contribution was. And then they said, the next step in Aerotel was to ask, well, does that contribution fall solely within the excluded subject matter field or realm? And then they said, well, if you get through that question, then you check the actual contribution or the alleged contribution to see whether it’s technical in nature. So that’s the Aerotel test as it was. And what the Supreme Court in their unanimous final decision said was that Aerotel at best jumbles up the order. It reverses the logical order of the analysis by starting with the contributions and then addressing the Article 52 exclusions. And then finally it goes back to what the technical nature of the invention is about. So they really went, no, we don’t like any of this stuff. It’s bad, it’s stupid, it puts the cart before the horse. So, in the intervening period between finding the case and actually seeing it progress all the way to the Supreme Court, we obviously had the G1/19 decision from the EPO Enlarged Board. And they basically said that they are going to validate any hardware as the approach. And that’s essentially what the UK also went with. The UK Supreme Court said we’re going to say that the threshold of patentability — or the exclusion to patentability — is simply overcome by the inclusion in a claim of any piece of hardware, whether it’s a processor or a piece of memory or whatever. It doesn’t matter. Any hardware makes the invention a technical invention. So it’s a really low threshold to consider. And they then went, well, actually, if we now align and harmonize with the European Patent Office sensibly, then we need to look at how we assess inventive step, which is the other thing that we raised with the Supreme Court. In fact, we probably raised it at other times and in all the other instances as well, but it came to a head at the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court then also went a bit further and said, well, actually, whilst we do like the global approach to assessing inventive step for all fields of technology — whether it’s chemistry or biotech or electronics or software or AI — we use a test called Pozzoli. So that isn’t problem-solution. We don’t like problem-solution. We think it’s not codified in the European Patent Office. It’s just a mechanism that the EPO has come up with to try to objectively assess inventive step. We don’t particularly think that’s appropriate. We like our approach called Pozzoli. That’s it. So we’re going to say with Pozzoli, however, in order to actually understand — particularly in the context of mixed inventions having technical and non-technical features — it’s necessary for the examiner to undertake the so-called intermediate step, where you have to look at the interactions between features within a claim. The invention is defined by the claim. That’s what the act says. That’s what everyone understands. It’s the invention defined by the claim. So you look at the claim features and then you have to understand the interactions that take place. And even if they are between technical and non-technical features, if they bring about an overall technical effect when you consider the invention as a whole, then your claim should be good and you can assess it for classical inventive step. So that’s really where we’re at. There’s a lot to unpack there already. It’s probably a podcast in its own right, but that’s the positive history of where we’re at. And I can keep going if you wish me to for a second and talk about why I think this is — we’ll just contrast it quickly with the problem-solution approach at the EPO and COMVIK. So for inventions in the computer-implemented field, they use COMVIK and the problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court said, as I said, they don’t like problem-solution. I think the problem-solution issue is that it is also inherently pre-baked with hindsight because you have to look at the invention and then step back and exclude those features which are common. And then you formulate a problem based on the function that the claim achieves. And then you’re asking whether or not it would be obvious for a skilled person to arrive at the claimed invention, having been given that hindsight-developed problem. So COMVIK is not great by any means. And we know from a practical perspective that examiners are only too willing to look at a claim and simply line through features which they believe are non-technical, whereas they don’t actually look at the interaction of those features in the context of the claim as a whole. There is also a decision — very recent one actually, about a year ago — T 1249/22, where the Technical Board of Appeal told the examiners and the examining division, you cannot do this. It’s okay to have a claim directed towards an invention in a non-technical field, as long as the invention is directed to a technical solution of that problem. I think it’s paragraphs 11 and 12 or 10 of that decision that are worth looking at. But they’re saying that in all fields of technology, it doesn’t matter as long as the technical solution is about technology — therefore, you should be able to obtain a patent as long as there is a realistic and appropriate technical effect. Be careful actually, Bruce — I don’t mean technical contribution, I mean technical effect. There’s a reason for that distinction. Rolf Claessen: The non-technical features are nevertheless used to assess inventive step in the UK now after this decision, right? Bruce Dearling: Yes, that is the intermediate step. The decision says you must look at the invention as a whole. It’s the important thing. There are a couple of issues that arise out of this. The first one is that you have to provide context for the invention. The Supreme Court never provided any specific guidance about how we deal with the intermediate step or what the exact test is, which is in some respects fine. It seems to be fairly clear that you just have to engage your gray matter — your neurons — to work out what is going on in the real world. And once you work out what’s going on in the real world, what the benefits are, then you look at whether or not the actual implementation of the invention fundamentally has a technical flavor to it, which is not just coding, not just simple coding, but it does something smarter. There’s a real technical impetus. There’s a technical effect. Now that actually brings me onto something I’ve postulated or said. I think the intermediate step will follow something like what I’ve termed the holistic character test, which essentially is: work out what’s going on in the real world. Then once you’ve worked out what’s actually being achieved, what the benefits are, what the invention’s concerned with, then you ask the question, how am I achieving it technically? And how is there a technical effect? How does the technical effect arise? That brings out a couple of issues. The first one is that it’s actually about the word “contribution” because it depends on how the word is used. So if you look at head note one in COMVIK, it uses the word “contribute” — how the non-technical feature contributes to the invention. So that’s an additive inclusive concept. The UK IPO historically, and arguably at the moment today whilst they’re trying to retrain their 400 examiners — which this has caused them to have to do — their idea of contribution is this backward-looking concept. So technical contribution and technical effect, I think — although we mix them up and interchange them — are distinct. Technical contribution: you’re looking backwards. Technical effect is what you look at when you look forward into what’s going on. So this is subtle — it’s really subtle, but it’s important. And once you realize that you are actually looking for the technical effects, then you’re on much safer ground. It’s much more objective in terms of the assessment. This might be somewhat contentious, because it’s the way I’m looking at this, but I’ve been working on this a long, long time and thinking about it for probably decades, worryingly so. So technical contribution and technical effects are probably not the same, where they are interchangeably used to mean the same thing within existing decisions. Rolf Claessen: And in the beginning you said, now that Aerotel is dead basically, it’s more harmonized with the EPO’s approach. But what I take from the discussion now is that maybe — especially in view of the problem-solution approach — it’s not fully harmonized with the EPO’s approach at the moment, right? Or did the UK Supreme Court get something wrong, or was that a desired outcome from your point of view that this is not so completely harmonized with the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Well, the EPO — the any-hardware solution is fully harmonized, no doubt. So it’s now a question of inventive step under Article 56 or Section 3 of the Act. The EPC nowhere mandates the use of problem-solution. And we know that there are many different ways of actually assessing inventive step, including the concrete elaboration test from last year and problem-of-invention approaches. So there are numerous ways of assessing inventive step. So the UK says, “Pozzoli — we like Pozzoli.” Interestingly, I had a discussion with someone I probably can’t mention. They’re saying that the UK approach may actually be more permissive now. It might even influence how the EPO operates. So they may move away from COMVIK towards more of a Pozzoli approach, which basically says this: You identify the notion of the skilled person — step one. You identify the common general knowledge of that skilled person — step one B. You identify the inventive concept of the claim in question, where you construe it if you can’t work out what it is. You then identify what the differences are. And then you ask the question, is it obvious to the skilled person, given knowledge of the common general knowledge? This is entirely not artificial because, as I said beforehand, when you look at problem-solution, you are formulating a problem by backtracking from what the claimed invention is to a situation where you say, well, these are the common features and I’m going to project a problem to try and solve. Now that is already tainted with hindsight reasoning. It’s not safe, it’s not thoroughly objective. There is an inherent problem with this which sees good inventions cast by the wayside. Although it’s a preferred mechanism, it’s not fully baked. There are situations where examiners are inherently lazy, or they just simply use something like the requirements specification argument, which is just factual. It just demonstrates that they can’t be bothered to actually argue it properly or think about what the invention is. Sorry to any examiners listening to this, but this is just my personal view, that sometimes there are problems. I’m reminded of a quote from an EPI hearing I was at a long time ago, where the Legal Board of Appeal member said: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” Now that one has stayed with me because you think — did someone just say that? And the answer is yes, they did. But it just goes to show that there is some tension between the TBA and the examining divisions, and they don’t always get it right. Rolf Claessen: So there might be a small difference now between the UKIPO’s future approach of assessing inventive step and the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, it might do. But the other interesting thing here — and thank you for pointing this out, I hadn’t entirely caught up with it, I’ve been traveling beforehand and I missed some of the UPC case law. So the UPC case law — in, was it — yeah, we talked about that. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. There was a decision in April, Abbott versus Sinocare. Bruce Dearling: Yeah, 901 of 2025. So a Court of Appeal decision from the UPC. It was APP_000000901, I believe, 2025. Decision 17th of April, hearing 27th of March. The UPC is not bound by — it’s a court. The European Patent Office is not a court, it’s an agency that administers and looks after the administrative rule of law. So the fact that this decision came out from the UK Supreme Court in February, and you see almost identical language used in the UPC decision, suggests that there is some alignment here, or some convergence in thought. Now, whilst the UPC decision also references G1/19 and uses problem-solution, there is enough — you’ve got to bear in mind that high-level courts do look at each other’s decisions. And this is really a question of influence and the desire to converge. So the fact that they’ve done this at this time is quite interesting. Again, I can’t quote someone directly from the EPO, although I would love to. They were saying — at a very high level — and they used the words “converge UPC practice towards UK Supreme Court practice on interpretation of the law.” So this may actually be happening in real time. Again, it would be wrong to actually refer to anyone by name, but it’s an observation that when I looked at the case, I can see why this is going ahead. And I can see why the judiciaries — they want to maintain independent judicial controls. They won’t reference the UK Supreme Court decision, not least because we’re not in the UPC. But if you look at the arguments in sections 106 and 107 of the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception decision and head note one, you go — wow, this is very close. Rolf Claessen: Very close and nearly identical wording. Yeah. And the UPC also now uses non-technical features for assessing inventive step. Is that a problem for the EPO that has historically been aggressive in throwing out non-technical features for inventive step analysis? Bruce Dearling: Well, I think they really need to get to the situation — I don’t know — this holistic character test that I’m sort of proposing, where you really have to think about what the invention is achieving, and then look at how it’s technically being achieved. And then if you look at that again in the context of that other decision I mentioned — T 1249/22 — it says something like, in the case of an invention that amounts to a technical implementation of a non-technical method, provided the non-technical method does not contribute to the technical character of the invention. The board validated the approach of identifying the non-technical method and then goes through and says it’s patentable. There are decisions like this which suggest that examining divisions have to give it a bit more thought, because the Technical Board will realize that to satisfy the WTO requirements — which pretty much everyone is bound by — Article 27.1 TRIPS, which requires that you protect all fields of technology. And that means whether it’s data processing or business methods, because business methods can be patentable so long as they are implemented on a technical basis. That essentially seems to be what T 1249/22 is saying, although it doesn’t explicitly say “allowing business methods.” The exclusion is only “as such.” So does this decision, in combination with the Supreme Court case and the movement of the UPC, say: well, actually, let’s look at this properly? It requires objective assessments, not just superficial “let’s strike through that feature because I don’t like it, it looks non-technical.” Rolf Claessen: So are you hopeful that the EPO is adjusting and will reshape their case law in view of the UPC decision and the UK Supreme Court decision? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit unfortunate that the corresponding UK case at the EPO was dropped by the applicants, because it was heading towards an examination hearing at the examining division. It would have gone to the TBA, and I’m sure it would then have gone from the TBA to the Enlarged Board. I’m pretty sure that’s the case. There is another case from the same client which will probably argue the same thing because the specs are almost identical. It’s just lagged in time. So is it going to change? I hope so, because I think the EPO have got it wrong — more often than not in this field. Well, maybe not more often than not — they get it wrong more times than they should do. Would I like to see it changed? Yes, I would, because I want the examiners to actually think about the technology as opposed to just — oh, it’s not — I don’t want to engage the gray matter. That serves no one. That doesn’t serve technology. That doesn’t serve industry. These patent rights are there for a reason. They are property rights. I’m referring to the award of the 2025 Nobel Prize for Economics — they are a core driver for society’s development. So the 2025 Nobel Prize was for something called creative destruction — the replacement of old technology with new — and it’s based on the patent paradigm. So all this stuff is coming to a head now. It’s just a question of how quickly the EPO actually catch up, and maybe they have something to catch up on. It’s just understanding that the examiners have to start to think. As I said, we’ve got the issues at the UKIPO where they’re going to have to retrain 400 examiners. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, right. Bruce Dearling: The Emotional Perception case wasn’t granted by the Supreme Court. They referred it back to the patent office for consideration under the intermediate step. So the patent office produced a response that I would describe as — I’d say arguably — not well reasoned, which I’ve filed the response to, which basically says you don’t really know what you’re talking about. What really worries me a bit is that I think they’re trying to introduce the Aerotel case through the back door. It’s backsliding. It’s a mechanism for trying to apply it in a different way or a different context, which would be wrong. I think they believe that the applicant will appeal this if they get a bad decision — they will appeal it back to the courts again via the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court route. I say maybe not. I say maybe the client will file what they call a judicial review, which is a nuclear option. That’s when you actually hold the Comptroller General of Patents to account and get full discovery of whether or not there’s internal documentation showing that they are deliberately circumventing the direction of the Supreme Court on the intermediate step. This is basically holding them to account and saying: if you’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately, you are in contempt of the law. So judicial review is a really serious thing to do, but it’s certainly something I would not exclude from consideration. We’ll see what happens. It’s not saying we’re just going to go through the courts and make them decide on this. We’re going to say you’re wrong. And there’s already enough evidence in the files to suggest that they are probably in contempt of court and they’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately. They may not know any better at the moment — they need to be guided — but the consequences for them are potentially severe. Rolf Claessen: I have another question for you. You were the instructing attorney — do you think the decision was perfect? What argument that you made was the most underappreciated by the court? And where do you think the judgment got it wrong, or was it all perfect? Bruce Dearling: No, it got 90% or 95% correct. The intermediate step is right. That’s the most important thing in the decision — it’s the intermediate step. The any-hardware thing — that’s logical, that makes some sense — but if people say “if the any-hardware rule is the important bit,” no it isn’t. It’s the intermediate step. That’s the important thing. Where do they go wrong? I think they went wrong because — and you’ve got to bear in mind that unlike German courts, I’ve got to be careful about how I express this — generally, as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the judiciary in Germany on patent cases are generally more technically able. They’re normally technically qualified. I look at the Supreme Court justices and the Court of Appeal justices — we had one who was a humanities undergrad, one was a chemist. Good luck with trying to argue complex artificial neural network technologies, which are difficult even for me to understand. And I’ve been working in the field. They’re hard to understand. They require real understanding, real appreciation. They could say, well, actually we don’t need to look at the technology — but frankly, if you’re looking at the statutes and exclusions to patentability and asking what a computer program is, then you need to understand what these technical terms really are. And if you can’t, then the judgment is potentially flawed. Their finding that the neural network is a computer program is, I think, technically obtuse. You know that the Singaporean government — the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore — released about six weeks ago a consultation note to the Singaporean profession and population, asking: is the Emotional Perception case right, and do we need to adopt it into Singaporean national law? So this is direct soft power from the UK Supreme Court changing Commonwealth legislation and statutes. We’ll see what happens. But from what I’ve seen of a draft response from the attorneys, they’re saying essentially: we agree any hardware is right, the intermediate step is right. The assessment of the neural network as a computer program is wrong, or it just doesn’t make any sense. And I’ve made the same comments before in SIPA, in the relevant round in March. There’s a disconnect. I mean, it’s like they equate a computer program with being able to be run on an analog computer. Now, an analog computer has no central processing unit. An analog computer just has resistors and transistors and capacitors. So if they’re saying that an analog computer can run a program — that’s essentially what they’re saying in part of the judgment. Where is the program in an analog computer? And if they’re saying it’s in the values of the resistors and the capacitors, then that has implications for any circuit we’ve got — it’s potentially a computer program — which is just madness, because it doesn’t sit well with the legislation and decisions we’ve looked at over the last 50 years. This is a real problem. It may be a storm in a teacup because you can overcome the objections by having any hardware, but it’s an argument they shouldn’t have been making. It seems to be abstract legal argumentation which has little credibility in my personal view, although it’s now law. It may be that someone can take that, have an argument with the Supreme Court, get them to fix this. The other thing is the EPO looks at a neural network as a mathematical method, and the UK now says it’s a computer program. Neither is right. The EPO is wrong as well. If you look at the actual decision which they regularly quote — the Vicom case — if you actually read the claim and look at the case, you see that it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense. A neural network has applied mathematics in it. It can be based on a computer program because it’s required to set up the learning objectives and the loss function. Mathematical processes — it tweaks the weighting factors of neurons over the course of the training epochs. But at the end of the day, if the function performed by the neural network is new and it’s directed towards a technical implementation which is technically relevant, then it shouldn’t fail for being a mathematical method. And I think the EPO guidelines actually say that. Even recommendations — the UK court said that a recommendation is not technical. Well, actually it is, because it’s data processing, and you’ve got to work out how does the data processing work to provide an improved recommendation? Again, it goes back to the T 1249/22 decision. There’s a whole raft of these things which are left not entirely resolved. There’s enough here to keep someone busy for a few more years. Rolf Claessen: Right. So I have a question for you now that we’ve talked about the decision of the UK Supreme Court and the UPC — the Unified Patent Court — with very, very similar wording. What do you say are the three most important takeaways for patent practitioners in the US, in Europe, in the UK, before the EPO? Are there any things that you really want patent practitioners to take away from our discussion here? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, okay. So first: make sure the claim has some structure in it. You need to have any hardware. That’s number one — in terms of claim drafting. In terms of the description, you really have to understand what the invention is about. And you’ve got to make sure that you explain what function is achieved by what piece of hardware, kit or software. And if you do that — don’t nickel-and-dime this by writing the claim first — I would suggest that you run into problems. You need to understand what the invention is about. And you need to make sure that the description is complete and full to describe the functionality and the effects that are achieved in the real world. And if you can do that, then you’re on a much sounder basis — much, much stronger. There’s a much stronger foundation for this. So that’s two things. Is there a third one? That’s me being a bit cheeky, but I suppose I know what’s going on. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, but maybe the third takeaway is that maybe the EPO will rethink the way — at least how AI inventions are assessed for inventive step. Bruce Dearling: Well, as I said to you before, it could be that that’s the case. I don’t want to repeat myself again. The word “permissive” was used in a conversation I had with respect to the UK Supreme Court approach. COMVIK fundamentally still breaks with me and has done for years, because the way it’s set up and the way it’s applied distorts fundamentally what the invention is about. And until such time as that distortion is removed, there is a problem of objectivity versus subjectivity. And I think that’s really what the EPO has to grapple with. It’s not an easy thing to deal with, but maybe there are things going on. Bruce Dearling: It’s not an easy thing to deal with. I don’t know who’s going to argue it. It would have been useful for me to still have the original case up and running at the EPO because these arguments would have been fleshed out. I’m pretty sure they would have been referred to the Enlarged Board. We would have got it resolved. So it’s whether or not I can now work this into the existing case to try and get the examining division to — well, they will refuse, I suspect. And then it’ll go to the TBA. And then the TBA will have to look at this, hopefully with the referrals to the Enlarged Board. And then that fixes the problem on a national and international basis. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. Let’s see. [Laughs] Bruce Dearling: No, we don’t know. I mean, you might have a different view. What do you think? Do you think COMVIK is fundamentally right or fundamentally wrong? Rolf Claessen: Well, I’m not so much into AI inventions. I’m a chemist and I usually deal with chemistry inventions. But from the discussion that we had, I think that the EPO might rethink their position. I don’t know. Let’s see. Let’s hope so. Bruce Dearling: Well, they liked it. They liked problem-solution. It’s been with us for 25 years. It suggests that it’s a compromise. It’s not mandated by the European Patent Convention — that’s the point. It’s something they think works. And these things only work until such time as someone comes along and says, actually, you’re wrong, and this is the reason. Rolf Claessen: Let’s see if they choose a different route at least for AI inventions. So Bruce, thank you very much for your insight and for talking about the case that you were involved in with the UK Supreme Court. Where could people reach you if they have more questions about this field — basically patents, AI protection in the UK and Europe — and if they want to ask you more questions about this case? Bruce Dearling: Sure. Through the Hepworth Brown website or my LinkedIn profile, I suppose. The Hepworth Brown website has an email link. I’m trying to post things on it as well to try and provide a bit more context. But if people have fundamental questions on this stuff, then I’m happy to try and answer them. I suppose that I can be considered to be quite knowledgeable in the area. Rolf Claessen: Right. Certainly more than I am. [Laughing] Bruce Dearling: So I was fortunate. As a consequence of the work I’m doing, I was appointed last year to the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents and Privacy. That was discussed for the issues of where WIPO goes and what the direction of the problems are that we have in high-tech areas. So there seems to be some degree of understanding that I might know what I’m talking about. I think I probably do. Rolf Claessen: Thank you, Bruce. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure. Thank you very much, Rolf.

Joseph Farco is a licensed intellectual property (IP) attorney with extensive experience in patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets is our latest guest on the Small Talk Podcast with co-hosts Chris Pomay & Marlene Sharp on Thursday, May 28th, at 8pm EST 5pm PST!With a multidisciplinary background as an engineer with mechanical and electrical expertise, a pharmaceutical chemist with a specialization in drug science, and a CAD specialist, Joe brings a comprehensive and practical perspective to IP law. He is also a patent-pending toy company owner.Joe provides end-to-end support for patent matters, including:Drafting and illustrating inventions for U.S. and international patent filings, using SolidWorks CAD and Visio;Prosecuting patents before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO);Representing clients in patent litigation at trial, on appeal, and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), including inter partes reviews (IPRs), reexaminations, and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings;Securing injunctions against infringing foreign entities through the International Trade Commission and enforcement on platforms such as Amazon; and,Strengthening and correcting issued patents.In addition to patent work, Joe supports individuals and companies across a wide range of IP-related needs.Small Talk co-host Marlene Sharp is a LinkedIn micro-influencer who wears many hats in multi-platform media. Small Talk Podcast is a monthly entertainment podcast talk show hosted by Marlene Sharp & Chris Pomay (Live With CDP Sports & Entertainment Talk Show and founder of CDP Media Productions) with various guests from around the world in different professions. #joefarco #licensedintellectualpropertyattorney #farcotoycompany #smalltalkpodcast #chrispomay #marlenesharp https://pinkpoodleproductions.comhttps://beacons.ai/chrisdpomayhttps://www.cameo.com/chrispomay book a personalized video message from yours truly CDP! https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/chris... if you wish to support my media content. https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast... . https://farcotoyco.com/https://www.bochner.law/team/joseph-f...Want to create live streams like this? Check out StreamYard: https://streamyard.com/pal/d/54200596..Chris Pomay Live With CDP Talk Showhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/vadimgovorov/https://linktr.ee/RubberNinja

This episode is sponsored by Dalia— Is your career site delivering the conversion you need? Dalia's plug-and-play tech turns any employer career site into a high-performance candidate conversion engine — no replatforming required, live in days.Visit dalia.co to learn more. Alright rec techies…..here's what's happening this week. Windmill describes itself as the “context graph for your people.” While most companies have sophisticated systems of record for their finances (ERP) and customers (CRM), the startup argues that the most critical asset—the workforce—is often managed via guesswork and fragmented data.  They announced this week theyve raised $12 million in a seed funding round. The investment was led by Inspired Capital, with significant participation from Primary Venture Partners, Founder Collective, and Oceans Ventures. https://hrtechfeed.com/performance-management-tool-raises-12m/ NY — Nomad Health announced its formal transition from a healthcare staffing agency to a software platform company. Nomad will offer its proprietary AI operating system to mid-market and enterprise healthcare staffing firms nationwide.  https://hrtechfeed.com/nomad-health-evolves-from-staffing-agency-to-ai-software-company/ SAN FRANCISCO — Checkr, the data platform powering safe and fair decisions across work and everyday life, today announced Checkr Profiles, a portable identity solution that gives individuals control over their verified credentials. Individuals can proactively share them, and marketplaces and platforms can embed trusted identity verification directly into their ecosystems.  https://hrtechfeed.com/checkr-launches-profiles-giving-people-a-verified-identity-that-travels-with-them/ PHILADELPHIA—As AI-generated resumes, deepfake interview responses, and fabricated work histories create a new candidate verification crisis for enterprise hiring, Phenom today announced the acquisition of Plum, a pioneer in psychometric-based talent assessments that validate the durable skills AI cannot manufacture and resumes cannot verify.  https://hrtechfeed.com/phenom-acquires-plum/ LOS ANGELES — Fama Technologies, Inc., a pioneer in AI-powered social background screening, announced that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has allowed all claims in its patent application covering the foundational technology behind social media background screening. The patent, titled “System for Searching and Correlating Online Activity with Individual Classification Factors,” has a priority date of November 30, 2015, establishing Fama as the original inventor of the technology that has since become a critical component of modern hiring and risk management.  https://hrtechfeed.com/fama-technologies-granted-u-s-patent-on-foundational-ai-powered-social-media-screening-technology/ Performance Management Tool Raises $12M Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become nearly ubiquitous in everyday life, and given AI's widespread use across industries, it is no surprise that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has taken a keen interest in AI, issuing guidance on how AI should be treated and used by USPTO personnel and patent practitioners alike.Questions and Comments: ARabinowitz@bakerlaw.com

You've got a brilliant invention, innovative service, or startup idea—but have you thought about protecting your brand name, logo, product design, or slogan? That's where trademarks come in—and most people don't realize how powerful they are until it's too late. In this episode, host Brian Fried sits down with Jason Lott, Managing Attorney for Trademarks at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), to break down everything you need to know about trademarks—no legal jargon, just clear, actionable guidance. Topics covered include:✅ What trademarks actually protect—names, logos, slogans, colors, sounds, product shapes, and more✅ The best timing to file for trademark protection✅ A simplified, step-by-step registration process from someone who's reviewed thousands of applications✅ How trademarks build real business value and create assets you can leverage✅ Trademarks vs. Copyrights vs. Patents—clearing up the confusion once and for allWith over 24 years of experience at the USPTO, Jason helps inventors, entrepreneurs, and startups understand how to protect what they're building, turning complex legal topics into strategies you can actually use. This episode is perfect if you:Are naming a business, product, or service and want to do it rightAre building something unique that needs protectionHave launched but haven't secured your trademark yetWant clarity on what trademarks cover and how they workWant to build valuable intellectual property assets that increase your company's worthYour intellectual property is an asset. Learn how to protect it and make it work for you.Watch the episode here: https://youtube.com/live/oxqLw65ugT8-----------------------Become a member today @ https://nationalinventorclub.com.Unlock Your Invention's Potential with Inventor Smart! Inventor Smart Community - The Ultimate APP for Inventors to connect, collaborate, network, and drive invention ideas forward! Join social networking, participate in group chats, events, visit the library, and find the support you need! Download the Inventor Smart Community app on Google Play or Apple App Store or here http://inventorsmart.app Join us today!Have a great invention idea?Do you want to know if your idea will make you money?If you're just getting started, need help with product development, engineering, prototyping, finding a product licensing agent, or with bringing your invention idea to reality manufacturing, schedule a call with Brian Fried, The Inventor Coach @ https://brianfried.com

I am Rolf Claessen and together with my co-host Ken Suzan I am welcoming you to episode 169 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann, co-founder of my patent law firm Michalski Hüttermann & Partner and a true expert on the Unified Patent Court. He has written several books about the new system and we talk about all the things that plaintiffs and defendants can learn from the first decisions of the court and what they mean for strategic decisions of the parties involved. But before we jump into this very interesting interview, I have news for you! The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is planning rule changes that would make it virtually impossible for third parties to challenge invalid patents before the patent office. Criticism has come from the EFF and other inventor rights advocates: the new rules would play into the hands of so-called non-practicing entities (NPEs), as those attacked would have few cost-effective ways to have questionable patents deleted. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reports a new record in international patent applications: in 2024, around 3.7 million patent applications were filed worldwide – an increase of 4.9% over the previous year. The main drivers were Asian countries (China alone accounted for 1.8 million), while demand for trademark protection has stabilized after the pandemic decline. US rapper Eminem is taking legal action in Australia against a company that sells swimwear under the name “Swim Shady.” He believes this infringes on his famous “Slim Shady” brand. The case illustrates that even humorous allusions to well-known brand names can lead to legal conflicts. A new ruling by the Unified Patent Court (UPC) demonstrates its cross-border impact. In “Fujifilm v. Kodak,” the local chamber in Mannheim issued an injunction that extends to the UK despite Brexit. The UPC confirmed its jurisdiction over the UK parts of a European patent, as the defendant Kodak is based in a UPC member state. A dispute over standard patents is looming at the EU level: the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) of the European Parliament voted to take the European Commission to the European Court of Justice. The reason for this is the Commission’s controversial withdrawal of a draft regulation on the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs). Parliament President Roberta Metsola is to decide by mid-November whether to file the lawsuit. In trademark law, USPTO Director Squires reported on October 31, 2025, that a new unit (“Trademark Registration Protection Office”) had removed approximately 61,000 invalid trademark applications from the registries. This cleanup of the backlog relieved the examining authority and accelerated the processing of legitimate applications. Now let's jump into the interview with Aloys Hüttermann: The Unified Patent Court Comes of Age – Insights from Prof. Aloys Hüttermann The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has moved from a long-discussed project to a living, breathing court system that already shapes patent enforcement in Europe. In a recent IP Fridays interview, Prof. Aloys Hüttermann – founder and equity partner at Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner and one of the earliest commentators on the UPC – shared his experiences from the first years of practice, as well as his view on how the UPC fits into the global patent litigation landscape. This article summarises the key points of that conversation and is meant as an accessible overview for in-house counsel, patent attorneys and business leaders who want to understand what the UPC means for their strategy. How Prof. Hüttermann Became “Mr. UPC” Prof. Hüttermann has been closely involved with the UPC for more than a decade. When it became clear, around 13 years ago, that the European project of a unified patent court and a unitary patent was finally going to happen, he recognised that this would fundamentally change patent enforcement in Europe. He started to follow the legislative and political developments in detail and went beyond mere observation. As author and editor of several books and a major commentary on the UPC, he helped shape the discussion around the new system. His first book on the UPC appeared in 2016 – years before the court finally opened its doors in 2023. What fascinated him from the beginning was the unique opportunity to witness the creation of an entirely new court system, to analyse how it would be built and, where possible, to contribute to its understanding and development. It was clear to him that this system would be a “game changer” for European patent enforcement. UPC in the Global Triangle: Europe, the US and China In practice, most international patent disputes revolve around three major regions: the UPC territory in Europe, the United States and China. Each of these regions has its own procedural culture, cost structure and strategic impact. From a territorial perspective, the UPC is particularly attractive because it can, under the right conditions, grant pan-European injunctions that cover a broad range of EU Member States with a single decision. This consolidation of enforcement is something national courts in Europe simply cannot offer. From a cost perspective, the UPC is significantly cheaper than US litigation, especially if one compares the cost of one UPC action with a bundle of separate national cases in large European markets. When viewed against the territorial reach and procedural speed, the “bang for the buck” is very compelling. China is again a different story. The sheer volume of cases there is enormous, with tens of thousands of patent infringement cases per year. Chinese courts are known for their speed; first-instance decisions within about a year are common. In this respect they resemble the UPC more than the US does. The UPC also aims at a roughly 12 to 15 month time frame for first-instance cases where validity is at issue. The US, by contrast, features extensive discovery, occasionally jury trials and often longer timelines. The procedural culture is very different. The UPC, like Chinese courts, operates without discovery in the US sense, which makes proceedings more focused on the written record and expert evidence that the parties present, and less on pre-trial disclosure battles. Whether a company chooses to litigate in the US, the UPC, China, or some combination of these forums will depend on where the key markets and assets are. However, in Prof. Hüttermann's view, once Europe is an important market, it is hard to justify ignoring the UPC. He expects the court's caseload and influence to grow strongly over the coming years. A Landmark UPC Case: Syngenta v. Sumitomo A particularly important case in which Prof. Hüttermann was involved is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo matter, concerning a composition patent. This case has become a landmark in UPC practice for several reasons. First, the Court of Appeal clarified a central point about the reach of UPC injunctions. It made clear that once infringement is established in one Member State, this will usually be sufficient to justify a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That confirmation gave patent owners confidence that the UPC can in fact deliver broad, cross-border relief in one go. Second, the facts of the case raised novel issues about evidence and territorial reach. The allegedly infringing product had been analysed based on a sample from the Czech Republic, which is not part of the UPC system. Later, the same product with the same name was marketed in Bulgaria, which is within UPC territory. The Court of Appeal held that the earlier analysis of the Czech sample could be relied on for enforcement in Bulgaria. This showed that evidence from outside the UPC territory can be sufficient, as long as it is properly linked to the products marketed within the UPC. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to state its view on inventive step. It confirmed that combining prior-art documents requires a “pointer”, in line with the EPO's problem-solution approach. The mere theoretical possibility of extracting a certain piece of information from a document does not suffice to justify an inventive-step attack. This is one of several decisions where the UPC has shown a strong alignment with EPO case law on substantive patentability. For Prof. Hüttermann personally, the case was also a lesson in oral advocacy before the UPC. During the two appeal hearings, the presiding judge asked unexpected questions that required quick and creative responses while the hearing continued. His practical takeaway is that parties should appear with a small, well-coordinated team: large enough to allow someone to work on a tricky question in the background, but small enough to remain agile. Two or three lawyers seem ideal; beyond that, coordination becomes difficult and “too many cooks spoil the broth”. A Game-Changing CJEU Decision: Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux Surprisingly, one of the most important developments for European patent litigation in the past year did not come from the UPC at all, but from the Court of Justice of the European Union. In Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux, the CJEU revisited the rules on cross-border jurisdiction under the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia). Previously, under what practitioners often referred to as the GAT/LuK regime, a court in one EU country was largely prevented from granting relief for alleged infringement in another country if the validity of the foreign patent was contested there. This significantly limited the possibilities for cross-border injunctions. In Bosch, the CJEU changed course. Without going into all procedural details, the essence is that courts in the EU now have broader powers to grant cross-border relief when certain conditions are met, particularly when at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state. The concept of an “anchor defendant” plays a central role: if you sue one group company in its home forum, other group companies in other countries, including outside the EU, can be drawn into the case. This has already had practical consequences. German courts, for example, have issued pan-European injunctions covering around twenty countries in pharmaceutical cases. There are even attempts to sue European companies for infringement of US patents based on acts in the US, using the logic of Bosch as a starting point. How far courts will ultimately go remains to be seen, but the potential is enormous. For the UPC, this development is highly relevant. The UPC operates in the same jurisdictional environment as national courts, and many defendants in UPC cases will be domiciled in UPC countries. This increases the likelihood that the UPC, too, can leverage the broadened possibilities for cross-border relief. In addition, we have already seen UPC decisions that include non-EU countries such as the UK within the scope of injunctions, in certain constellations. The interaction between UPC practice and the Bosch jurisprudence of the CJEU is only beginning to unfold. Does the UPC Follow EPO Case Law? A key concern for many patent owners and practitioners is whether the UPC will follow the EPO's Boards of Appeal or develop its own, possibly divergent, case law on validity. On procedural matters, the UPC is naturally different from the EPO. It has its own rules of procedure, its own timelines and its own tools, such as “front-loaded” pleadings and tight limits on late-filed material. On substantive law, however, Prof. Hüttermann's conclusion is clear: there is “nothing new under the sun”. The UPC's approach to novelty, inventive step and added matter is very close to that of the EPO. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears frequently in UPC decisions. Intermediate generalisations are treated with the same suspicion as at the EPO. In at least one case, the UPC revoked a patent for added matter even though the EPO had granted it in exactly that form. The alignment is not accidental. The UPC only deals with European patents granted by the EPO; it does not hear cases on purely national patents. If the UPC were more generous than the EPO, many patents would never reach it. If it were systematically stricter, patentees would be more tempted to opt out of the system. In practice, the UPC tends to apply the EPO's standards and, where anything differs, it is usually a matter of factual appreciation rather than a different legal test. For practitioners, this has a very practical implication: if you want to predict how the UPC will decide on validity, the best starting point is to ask how the EPO would analyse the case. The UPC may not always reach the same result in parallel EPO opposition proceedings, but the conceptual framework is largely the same. Trends in UPC Practice: PIs, Equivalents and Division-Specific Styles Even in its early years, certain trends and differences between UPC divisions can be observed. On preliminary injunctions, the local division in Düsseldorf has taken a particularly proactive role. It has been responsible for most of the ex parte PIs granted so far and applies a rather strict notion of urgency, often considering one month after knowledge of the infringement as still acceptable, but treating longer delays with scepticism. Other divisions tend to see two months as still compatible with urgency, and they are much more cautious with ex parte measures. Munich, by contrast, has indicated a strong preference for inter partes PI proceedings and appears reluctant to grant ex parte relief at all. A judge from Munich has even described the main action as the “fast” procedure and the inter partes PI as the “very fast” one, leaving little room for an even faster ex parte track. There are also differences in how divisions handle amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. Munich has suggested that if a patentee needs to rely on claim amendments or auxiliary requests in a PI, the request is unlikely to succeed. Other divisions have been more open to considering auxiliary requests. The doctrine of equivalents is another area where practice is not yet harmonised. The Hague division has explicitly applied a test taken from Dutch law in at least one case and found infringement by equivalence. However, the Court of Appeal has not yet endorsed a specific test, and in another recent Hague case the same division did not apply that Dutch-law test again. The Mannheim division has openly called for the development of an autonomous, pan-European equivalence test, but has not yet fixed such a test in a concrete decision. This is clearly an area to watch. Interim conferences are commonly used in most divisions to clarify issues early on, but Düsseldorf often dispenses with them to save time. In practice, interim conferences can be very helpful for narrowing down the issues, though parties should not expect to be able to predict the final decision from what is discussed there. Sometimes topics that dominate the interim conference play little or no role in the main oral hearing. A Front-Loaded System and Typical Strategic Mistakes UPC proceedings are highly front-loaded and very fast. A defendant usually has three months from service of the statement of claim to file a full statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation. This is manageable, but only if the time is used wisely. One common strategic problem is that parties lose time at the beginning and only develop a clear strategy late in the three-month period. According to Prof. Hüttermann, it is crucial to have a firm strategy within the first two or three weeks and then execute it consistently. Constantly changing direction is a recipe for failure in such a compressed system. Another characteristic is the strict attitude towards late-filed material. It is difficult to introduce new documents or new inventive-step attacks later in the procedure. In some cases even alternative combinations of already-filed prior-art documents have been viewed as “new” attacks and rejected as late. At the appeal stage, the Court of Appeal has even considered new arguments based on different parts of a book already in the file as potentially late-filed. This does not mean that parties should flood the court with dozens of alternative attacks in the initial brief. In one revocation action, a plaintiff filed about fifty different inventive-step attacks, only to be told by the court that this was not acceptable and that the attacks had to be reduced and structured. The UPC is not a body conducting ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case actively and to ask parties to focus on the most relevant issues. Evidence Gathering, Protective Letters and the Defendant's Perspective The UPC provides powerful tools for both sides. Evidence inspection is becoming more common, not only at trade fairs but also at company premises. This can be a valuable tool for patentees, but it also poses a serious risk for defendants who may suddenly face court-ordered inspections. From the perspective of potential defendants, protective letters are an important instrument, especially in divisions like Düsseldorf where ex parte PIs are possible. A well-written protective letter, filed in advance, can significantly reduce the risk of a surprise injunction. The court fees are moderate, but the content of the protective letter must be carefully prepared; a poor submission can cause more harm than good. Despite the strong tools available to patentees, Prof. Hüttermann does not view the UPC as unfair to defendants. If a defendant files a solid revocation counterclaim, the pressure shifts to the patentee, who then has only two months to reply, prepare all auxiliary requests and adapt the enforcement strategy. This is even more demanding than at the EPO, because the patentee must not only respond to validity attacks but also ensure that any amended claims still capture the allegedly infringing product. It is entirely possible to secure the survival of a patent with an auxiliary request that no longer covers the defendant's product. In that scenario, the patentee has “won” on validity but lost the infringement case. Managing this tension under tight time limits is a key challenge of UPC practice. The Future Role of the UPC and How to Prepare Today the UPC hears a few hundred cases per year, compared with several thousand patent cases in the US and tens of thousands in China. Nevertheless, both the court itself and experienced practitioners see significant growth potential. Prof. Hüttermann expects case numbers to multiply in the medium term. Whether the UPC will become the first choice forum in global disputes or remain one pillar in parallel proceedings alongside the US and China will depend on the strategies of large patentees and the evolution of case law. However, the court is well equipped: it covers a large, economically important territory, is comparatively cost-effective and offers fast procedures with robust remedies. For companies that may end up before the UPC, preparation is essential. On the offensive side, that means building strong evidence and legal arguments before filing, being ready to proceed quickly and structured, and understanding the specific styles of the relevant divisions. On the defensive side, it may mean filing protective letters in risk-exposed markets, preparing internal processes for rapid reaction if a statement of claim arrives, and taking inspection requests seriously. Conclusion The Unified Patent Court has quickly moved from theory to practice. It offers pan-European relief, fast and front-loaded procedures, and a substantive approach that closely mirrors the EPO's case law. At the same time, national and EU-level developments like the Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision are reshaping the jurisdictional framework in which the UPC operates, opening the door for far-reaching cross-border injunctions. For patent owners and potential defendants alike, the message is clear: the UPC is here to stay and will become more important year by year. Those who invest the time to understand its dynamics now – including its alignment with the EPO, the differences between divisions, and the strategic implications of its procedures – will be in a much better position when the first UPC dispute lands on their desk. Here is the full transcript of the interview: Rolf Claessen:Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann. He is founder and equity partner of my firm, Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner. More importantly for today's interview, he has written several books about the Unified Patent Court. The first one already came out in 2016. He is co-editor and author of one of the leading commentaries on the UPC and has gained substantial experience in UPC cases so far – one of them even together with me. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays again, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you for inviting me, it's an honour. How did you get so deeply involved in the UPC? Rolf Claessen:Before we dive into the details, how did you end up so deeply involved in the Unified Patent Court? And what personally fascinates you about this court? Aloys Hüttermann:This goes back quite a while – roughly 13 years. At that time it became clear that, after several failed attempts, Europe would really get a pan-European court and a pan-European patent, and that this time it was serious. I thought: this is going to be the future. That interested me a lot, both intellectually and practically. A completely new system was being built. You could watch how it evolved – and, if possible, even help shape it a bit. It was also obvious to me that this would be a complete game changer. Nobody expected that it would take until 2023 before the system actually started operating, but now it is here. I became heavily interested early on. As you mentioned, my first book on the UPC was published in 2016, in the expectation that the system would start soon. It took a bit longer, but now we finally have it. UPC vs. US and China – speed, cost and impact Rolf Claessen:Before we go deeper into the UPC, let's zoom out. If you compare litigation before the UPC with patent litigation in the US and in China – in terms of speed, cost and the impact of decisions – what are the key differences that a business leader should understand? Aloys Hüttermann:If you look at the three big regions – the UPC territory in Europe, the US and China – these are the major economic areas for many technology companies. One important point is territorial reach. In the UPC, if the conditions are met, you can get pan-European injunctions that cover many EU Member States in one go. We will talk about this later in more detail. On costs there is a huge difference between the US and the UPC. The UPC is much cheaper than US litigation, especially once you look at the number of countries you can cover with one case if the patent has been validated widely. China is different again. The number of patent infringement cases there is enormous. I have seen statistics of around 40,000 infringement cases per year in China. That is huge – compared with roughly 164 UPC infringement cases in the first year and maybe around 200 in the current year. On speed, Chinese courts are known to be very fast. You often get a first-instance decision in about a year. The UPC is comparable: if there is a counterclaim for revocation, you are looking at something like 12 to 15 months for a first-instance decision. The US can be slower, and the procedure is very different. You have full discovery, you may have juries. None of that exists at the UPC. From that perspective, Chinese and UPC proceedings are more similar to each other than either is to the US. The UPC is still a young court. We have to see how influential its case law will be worldwide in the long run. What we already see, at least in Germany, is a clear trend away from purely national patent litigation and towards the UPC. That is inside Europe. The global impact will develop over time. When is the UPC the most powerful tool? Rolf Claessen:Let's take the perspective of a global company. It has significant sales in Europe and in the US and production or key suppliers in China. In which situations would you say the UPC is your most powerful tool? And when might the US or China be the more strategic battleground? Aloys Hüttermann:To be honest, I would almost always consider bringing a case before the UPC. The “bang for the buck” is very good. The UPC is rather fast. That alone already gives you leverage in negotiations. The threat of a quick, wide-reaching injunction is a strong negotiation tool. Whether you litigate in the US instead of the UPC, or in addition, or whether you also go to China – that depends heavily on the individual case: where the products are sold, where the key markets are, where the defendant has assets, and so on. But in my view, once you have substantial sales in Europe, you should seriously consider the UPC. And for that reason alone I expect case numbers at the UPC to increase significantly in the coming years. A landmark UPC case: Syngenta vs. Sumitomo (composition patent) Rolf Claessen:You have already been involved in several UPC cases – and one of them together with me, which was great fun. Looking at the last 12 to 18 months, is there a case, decision or development that you find particularly noteworthy – something that really changed how you think about UPC litigation or how companies should prepare? Aloys Hüttermann:The most important UPC case I have been involved in so far is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo case on a composition patent. It has become a real landmark and was even mentioned in the UPC's annual report. It is important for several reasons. First, it was one of the first cases in which the Court of Appeal said very clearly: if you have established infringement in one Member State, that will usually be enough for a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That is a powerful statement about the reach of UPC relief. Second, the facts were interesting. The patent concerned a composition. We had analysed a sample that had been obtained in the Czech Republic, which is not a UPC country. Later, the same product was marketed under the same name in Bulgaria, which is in the UPC. The question was whether the analysis of the Czech sample could be used as a basis for enforcement in Bulgaria. The Court of Appeal said yes, that was sufficient. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to say something about inventive step. It more or less confirmed that the UPC's approach is very close to the EPO's problem-solution approach. It emphasised that, if you want to combine prior-art documents, you need a “pointer” to do so. The mere theoretical possibility that a skilled person could dig a particular piece of information out of a document is not enough. For me personally, the most memorable aspect of this case was not the outcome – that was largely in line with what we had expected – but the oral hearings at the appeal stage. We had two hearings. In both, the presiding judge asked us a question that we had not anticipated at all. And then you have about 20 minutes to come up with a convincing answer while the hearing continues. We managed it, but it made me think a lot about how you should prepare for oral hearings at the UPC. My conclusion is: you should go in with a team, but not too big. In German we say, “Zu viele Köche verderben den Brei” – too many cooks spoil the broth. Two or three people seems ideal. One of them can work quietly on such a surprise question at the side, while the others continue arguing the case. In the end the case went very well for us, so I can speak about it quite calmly now. But in the moment your heart rate definitely goes up. The CJEU's Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision – a real game changer Rolf Claessen:You also mentioned another development that is not even a UPC case, but still very important for European patent litigation. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes. In my view, the most important case of the last twelve months is not a UPC decision but a judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU): Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. This is going to be a real game changer for European IP law, and I am sure we have not seen the end of its effects yet. One example: someone has recently sued BMW before the Landgericht München I, a German court, for infringement of a US patent based on acts in the US. The argument is that this could be backed by the logic of Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. We do not know yet what the court will do with that, but the fact that people are trying this shows how far-reaching the decision might be. Within the UPC we have already seen injunctions being issued for countries outside the UPC territory and even outside the EU, for example including the UK. So you see how these developments start to interact. Rolf Claessen:For listeners who have not followed the case so closely: in very simple terms, the CJEU opened the door for courts in one EU country to rule on patent infringement that took place in other countries as well, right? Aloys Hüttermann:Exactly. Before Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux we had what was often called the GAT/LuK regime. The basic idea was: if you sue someone in, say, Germany for infringement of a European patent, and you also ask for an injunction for France, and the defendant then challenges the validity of the patent in France, the German court cannot grant you an injunction covering France. The Bosch decision changed that. The legal basis is the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia), which deals with jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters in the EU. It is not specific to IP; it applies to civil cases generally, but it does have some provisions that are relevant for patents. In Bosch, a Swedish court asked the CJEU for guidance on cross-border injunctions. The CJEU more or less overturned its old GAT/LuK case law. Now, in principle, if the defendant is domiciled in a particular Member State, the courts of that state can also grant cross-border relief for other countries, under certain conditions. We will not go into all the details here – that could fill a whole separate IP Fridays episode – but one important concept is the “anchor defendant”. If you sue a group of companies and at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state, then other group companies in other countries – even outside the EU, for example in Hong Kong – can be drawn into the case and affected by the decision. This is not limited to the UPC, but of course it is highly relevant for UPC litigation. Statistically it increases the chances that at least one defendant will be domiciled in a UPC country, simply because there are many of them. And we have already seen courts like the Landgericht München I grant pan-European injunctions for around 20 countries in a pharmaceutical case. Rolf Claessen:Just to clarify: does it have to be the headquarters of the defendant in that country, or is any registered office enough? Aloys Hüttermann:That is one of the open points. If the headquarters are in Europe, then it is clear that subsidiaries outside Europe can be affected as well. If the group's headquarters are outside Europe and only a subsidiary is here, the situation is less clear and we will have to see what the courts make of it. Does the UPC follow EPO case law? Rolf Claessen:Many patent owners and in-house counsel wonder: does the UPC largely follow the case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal, or is it starting to develop its own distinct line? What is your impression so far – both on substantive issues like novelty and inventive step, and on procedural questions? Aloys Hüttermann:On procedure the UPC is, of course, very different. It has its own procedural rules and they are not the same as at the EPO. If we look at patent validity, however, my impression is that there is “nothing new under the sun” – that was the title of a recent talk I gave and will give again in Hamburg. Substantively, the case law of the UPC and the EPO is very similar. For inventive step, people sometimes say the UPC does not use the classical problem-solution approach but a more “holistic” approach – whatever that is supposed to mean. In practice, in both systems you read and interpret prior-art documents and decide what they really disclose. In my view, the “error bar” that comes from two courts simply reading a document slightly differently is much larger than any systematic difference in legal approach. If you look at other grounds, such as novelty and added matter, the UPC even follows the EPO almost verbatim. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears all over UPC decisions, even if the EPO case numbers are not always cited. The same is true for novelty. So the rule-based, almost “Hilbertian” EPO approach is very much present at the UPC. There is also a structural reason for that. All patents that the UPC currently deals with have been granted by the EPO. The UPC does not handle patents granted only by national offices. If the UPC wanted to deviate from EPO case law and be more generous, then many patents would never reach the UPC in the first place. The most generous approach you can have is the one used by the granting authority – the EPO. So if the UPC wants to be different, it can only be stricter, not more lenient. And there is little incentive to be systematically stricter, because that would reduce the number of patents that are attractive to enforce before the UPC. Patent owners might simply opt out. Rolf Claessen:We also talked about added matter and a recent case where the Court of Appeal was even stricter than the EPO. That probably gives US patent practitioners a massive headache. They already struggle with added-matter rules in Europe, and now the UPC might be even tougher. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, especially on added matter. I once spoke with a US practitioner who said, “We hope the UPC will move away from intermediate generalisations.” There is no chance of that. We already have cases where the Court of Appeal confirmed that intermediate generalisations are not allowed, in full alignment with the EPO. You mentioned a recent case where a patent was revoked for added matter, even though it had been granted by the EPO in exactly that form. This shows quite nicely what to expect. If you want to predict how the UPC will handle a revocation action, the best starting point is to ask: “What would the EPO do?” Of course, there will still be cases where the UPC finds an invention to be inventive while the EPO, in parallel opposition proceedings, does not – or vice versa. But those are differences in the appreciation of the facts and the prior art, which you will always have. The underlying legal approach is essentially the same. Rolf Claessen:So you do not see a real example yet where the UPC has taken a totally different route from the EPO on validity? Aloys Hüttermann:No, not really. If I had to estimate how the UPC will decide, I would always start from what I think the EPO would have done. Trends in UPC practice: PIs, equivalents, interim conferences Rolf Claessen:If you look across the different UPC divisions and cases: what trends do you see in practice? For example regarding timelines, preliminary injunctions, how validity attacks are handled, and how UPC cases interact with EPO oppositions or national proceedings? Aloys Hüttermann:If you take the most active divisions – essentially the big four in Germany and the local division in The Hague – they all try to be very careful and diligent in their decisions. But you can already see some differences in practice. For preliminary injunctions there is a clear distinction between the local division in Düsseldorf and most other divisions. Düsseldorf considers one month after knowledge of the infringement as still sufficiently urgent. If you wait longer, it is usually considered too late. In many other divisions, two months is still viewed as fine. Düsseldorf has also been the division that issued most of the ex parte preliminary injunctions so far. Apart from one special outlier where a standing judge from Brussels was temporarily sitting in Milan, Düsseldorf is basically the only one. Other divisions have been much more reluctant. At a conference, Judge Pichlmaier from the Munich division once said that he could hardly imagine a situation where his division would grant an ex parte PI. In his words, the UPC has two types of procedure: one that is fast – the normal main action – and one that is very fast – the inter partes PI procedure. But you do not really have an “ultra-fast” ex parte track, at least not in his division. Another difference relates to amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. In one recent case in Munich the court said more or less that if you have to amend your patent or rely on auxiliary requests in a PI, you lose. Other divisions have been more flexible and have allowed auxiliary requests. Equivalence is another area where we do not have a unified line yet. So far, only the Hague division has clearly found infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and explicitly used a test taken from Dutch law. Whether that test will be approved by the Court of Appeal is completely open – the first case settled, so the Court of Appeal never ruled on it, and a second one is still very recent. Interestingly, there was another Hague decision a few weeks ago where equivalence was on the table, but the division did not apply that Dutch-law test. We do not know yet why. The Mannheim division has written in one decision that it would be desirable to develop an autonomous pan-European test for equivalence, instead of just importing the German, UK or Dutch criteria. But they did not formulate such a test in that case because it was not necessary for the decision. So we will have to see how that evolves. On timelines, one practical difference is that Düsseldorf usually does not hold an interim conference. That saves them some time. Most other divisions do hold interim conferences. Personally, I like the idea because it can help clarify issues. But you cannot safely read the final outcome from these conferences. I have also seen cases where questions raised at the interim conference did not play any role in the main oral hearing. So they are useful for clarification, but not as a crystal ball. Front-loaded proceedings and typical strategic mistakes Rolf Claessen:If you look at the behaviour of parties so far – both patentees and defendants – what are the most common strategic mistakes you see in UPC litigation? And what would a well-prepared company do differently before the first statement of claim is ever filed? Aloys Hüttermann:You know you do not really want me to answer that question… Rolf Claessen:I do! Aloys Hüttermann:All right. The biggest mistake, of course, is that they do not hire me. That is the main problem. Seriously, it is difficult to judge parties' behaviour from the outside. You rarely know the full picture. There may be national proceedings, licensing discussions, settlement talks, and so on in the background. That can limit what a party can do at the UPC. So instead of criticising, I prefer to say what is a good idea at the UPC. The system is very front-loaded and very fast. If you are sued, you have three months to file your statement of defence and your counterclaim for revocation. In my view, three months are manageable – but only if you use the time wisely and do not waste it on things that are not essential. If you receive a statement of claim, you have to act immediately. You should have a clear strategy within maybe two or three weeks and then implement it. If you change your strategy every few weeks, chances are high that you will fail. Another point is that everything is front-loaded. It is very hard to introduce new documents or new attacks later. Some divisions have been a bit generous in individual cases, but the general line is strict. We have seen, for example, that even if you filed a book in first instance, you may not be allowed to rely on a different chapter from the same book for a new inventive-step attack at the appeal stage. That can be regarded as late-filed, because you could have done it earlier. There is also case law saying that if you first argue inventive step as “D1 plus D2”, and later want to argue “D2 plus D1”, that can already be considered a new, late attack. On the other hand, we had a revocation action where the plaintiff filed about 50 different inventive-step attacks in the initial brief. The division then said: this does not work. Please cut them down or put them in a clear hierarchy. In the end, not all of them were considered. The UPC does not conduct an ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case and to tell the parties to limit themselves in the interest of a fair and efficient procedure. Rolf Claessen:I have the feeling that the EPO is also becoming more front-loaded – if you want to rely on documents later, you should file them early. But it sounds like the UPC is even more extreme in that regard. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, that is true. Protective letters, inspections and the defendant's perspective Rolf Claessen:Suppose someone from a company is listening now and thinks: “We might be exposed at the UPC,” or, “We should maybe use the UPC offensively against competitors.” What would you consider sensible first steps before any concrete dispute arises? And looking three to five years ahead, how central do you expect the UPC to become in global patent litigation compared to the US and China? Aloys Hüttermann:Let me start with the second part. I expect the UPC to become significantly more important. If we have around 200 cases this year, that is a good start, but it is still very small compared to, say, 4,000 to 5,000 patent cases per year in the US and 40,000 or so in China. Even François Bürgin and Klaus Grabinski, in interviews, have said that they are happy with the case load, but the potential is much larger. In my view, it is almost inevitable that we will see four or five times as many UPC cases in the not-too-distant future. As numbers grow, the influence of the UPC will grow as well. Whether, in five or ten years, companies will treat the UPC as their first choice forum – or whether they will usually run it in parallel with US litigation in major disputes – remains to be seen. The UPC would be well equipped for that: the territory it covers is large, Europe is still an important economy, and the UPC procedure is very attractive from a company's perspective. On sensible first steps: if you are worried about being sued, a protective letter can make a lot of sense – especially in divisions like Düsseldorf, where ex parte PIs are possible in principle. A protective letter is not very expensive in terms of court fees. There is also an internal system that ensures the court reads it before deciding on urgent measures. Of course, the content must have a certain quality; a poor protective letter can even backfire. If you are planning to sue someone before the UPC, you should be extremely well prepared when you file. You should already have all important documents and evidence at hand. As we discussed, it is hard to introduce new material later. One tool that is becoming more and more popular is inspection – not just at trade fairs, where we already saw cases very early, but also at company premises. Our firm has already handled such an inspection case. That is something you should keep in mind on both sides: it is a powerful evidence-gathering tool, but also a serious risk if you are on the receiving end. From the defendant's perspective, I do not think the UPC is unfair. If you do your job properly and put a solid revocation counterclaim on the table, then the patentee has only two months to prepare a full reply and all auxiliary requests. And there is a twist that makes life even harder for the patentee than at the EPO. At the EPO the question is mainly: do my auxiliary requests overcome the objections and are they patentable? At the UPC there is an additional layer: do I still have infringement under the amended claims? You may save your patent with an auxiliary request that no longer reads on the defendant's product. That is great for validity, but you have just lost the infringement case. You have kept the patent but lost the battle. And all of this under very tight time limits. That creates considerable pressure on both sides. How to contact Prof. Hüttermann Rolf Claessen:Thank you very much for this really great interview, Aloys. Inside our firm you have a nickname: “the walking encyclopedia of the Unified Patent Court” – because you have written so many books about it and have dealt with the UPC for such a long time. What is the best way for listeners to get in touch with you? Aloys Hüttermann:The easiest way is by email. You can simply write to me, and that is usually the best way to contact me. As you may have noticed, I also like to speak. I am a frequent speaker at conferences. If you happen to be at one of the conferences where I am on the programme – for example, next week in Hamburg – feel free to come up to me and ask me anything in person. But email is probably the most reliable first step. Rolf Claessen:Perfect. Thank you very much, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you. It was a pleasure to be on IP Fridays again. Some of your long-time listeners may remember that a few years ago – when you were not yet part of our firm – we already did an episode on the UPC, back when everything was still very speculative. It is great to be back now that the system is actually in place and working. Rolf Claessen:I am very happy to have you back on the show.

In this National Inventor Club livestream, we welcomed leaders from the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) to share valuable insights that go far beyond filing patents and trademarks. Many inventors don't realize that the USPTO offers training programs, educational resources, and community outreach initiatives designed to help innovators succeed. During this session, attendees got an inside look at how the USPTO is expanding support for inventors and entrepreneurs nationwide.

Your business name, logo, slogan, or product design could be worth protecting—and trademarks are the key to safeguarding them. In this National Inventor Club session, we were joined by Christina Calloway, Attorney for Trademarks Customer Outreach at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), for an essential Trademark Boot Camp. Christina shared expert guidance on how inventors, entrepreneurs, and business owners can build lasting brand value by protecting their intellectual property before it's too late.

This Day in Legal History: Lord Haw-Haw SentencedOn September 19, 1945, William Joyce—infamously known as “Lord Haw-Haw”—was sentenced to death by a British court for high treason. Joyce had gained notoriety during World War II for broadcasting Nazi propaganda over German radio to British audiences, aiming to demoralize Allied troops and civilians. Born in Brooklyn, New York, and raised in the UK and Ireland, Joyce later became a naturalized German citizen and an enthusiastic supporter of Hitler. His broadcasts, delivered in a nasal, sneering voice, opened with the phrase “Germany calling,” and earned him the derisive nickname "Lord Haw-Haw" from British listeners.After the war, Joyce was captured by British forces in Germany and brought back to the UK to stand trial. Despite his German citizenship, the court ruled that he had committed treason because he had held a British passport when he began working for the Nazis. His legal defense argued that he owed no allegiance to Britain at the time of the broadcasts, but the court held that possession of the passport created a duty of allegiance. The case raised significant questions about the limits of national loyalty and the reach of British treason laws.On January 6, 1946, Joyce was executed by hanging at Wandsworth Prison, becoming one of the last people to be executed for treason in the UK. The trial and execution were controversial, with some legal scholars and public commentators questioning the soundness of the court's interpretation of allegiance. Nevertheless, the sentence was seen by many at the time as a necessary response to one of the most prominent domestic collaborators of the war.The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), long considered a cost-effective and critical pillar of U.S. workplace safety, has been effectively dismantled under the Trump administration's 2025 restructuring efforts. The agency, a division of the CDC responsible for certifying N95 masks, studying firefighter deaths, and leading occupational health research, saw roughly 90% of its 1,000 staff receive layoff notices on April 1. This move paralyzed core programs, from black lung screenings to PPE certifications, halting NIOSH's role as both a public safeguard and a quiet corporate consultant. The sudden cuts sparked chaos: lab animals were euthanized, crucial research was frozen, and businesses warned of safety gaps and market instability.Many affected workers have since resigned or are stuck on administrative leave, while others remain in limbo as lawsuits challenge the legality of the terminations. Despite statements from HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claiming essential functions remain intact, internal confusion and partial walk-backs—like budget proposals still seeking to slash 80% of NIOSH funding—suggest deeper dismantling intentions. Business leaders, labor unions, and safety advocates have united in rare bipartisan pushback, warning of long-term risks to both worker health and industrial standards.The agency's downfall is part of a broader campaign to weaken the federal workforce, spearheaded by Project 2025 architects and executed with sweeping firings, anti-DEI mandates, and deep budget cuts across agencies. Former government scientists describe the collapse of safety infrastructure as a slow, invisible crisis—where the full damage may not emerge for years. With morale shattered and talent fleeing, the future of U.S. workplace safety research is in jeopardy.Trump Team Derailed Corporate America's Most Valuable ConsultantTwo major elements of President Donald Trump's economic agenda—his global tariffs and his attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook—are now in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court, raising pivotal questions about the scope of presidential power. The court has agreed to hear a challenge to Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs, a law traditionally used to sanction hostile foreign actors, not manage trade. Arguments are set for November 5. Separately, Trump is seeking to fire Cook, claiming misconduct; however, critics argue this is a pretext for targeting her policy views and that doing so violates the 1913 law establishing the Fed's independence.Legal scholars warn that siding with Trump in either case could dramatically expand executive authority. Trump has already tested legal boundaries across immigration, diversity, and civil service policy. While lower courts have often blocked his initiatives, the Supreme Court—now with a 6-3 conservative majority including three Trump appointees—has frequently sided with him. The Cook case raises unprecedented constitutional questions, as no president has ever removed a Fed governor.Meanwhile, Trump's tariff actions have destabilized global trade relations and spurred economic uncertainty, though his allies argue they are central to his economic strategy. A decision favoring Trump in both cases could weaken institutional checks on executive power and erode the principle of independent monetary policy.Key parts of Trump's economic agenda now in Supreme Court's hands | ReutersIn Washington, D.C., immigrant neighborhoods like Mount Pleasant, Petworth, and Columbia Heights are pushing back against a surge in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests under President Donald Trump's intensified immigration enforcement campaign. Local residents have begun organizing in real-time—using chat groups and in-person protests—to disrupt ICE detentions, including a recent case where bystanders successfully pressured officers to release a Guatemalan man. These actions reflect growing distrust and fear within largely Latino communities, where residents report increased racial profiling and aggressive policing.The Trump administration's recent declaration of a “crime emergency” in D.C., coupled with the federalization of local police and a heightened ICE presence, has heightened tensions, especially in areas with deep immigrant roots. Community members and advocacy groups say people are being targeted based on appearance or location, not criminal history. Businesses that once bustled with immigrant patrons are seeing sharp declines in foot traffic, as many residents now avoid public spaces out of fear.Federal officials defend the enforcement as targeting serious offenders, but critics point out that many arrests involve individuals without criminal records. A Supreme Court ruling this month has further enabled ICE to continue race- or location-based arrests. Meanwhile, residents like Yessica Gonzalez and Nelvin Rodriguez say the climate of fear is unlike anything they've previously experienced. The increased enforcement has not only disrupted lives but also strained local economies and community trust.Washington's immigrant neighborhoods push back against ICE arrests | ReutersThe U.S. Senate has confirmed John Squires, a veteran intellectual property attorney and former Goldman Sachs executive, as the new head of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) under President Donald Trump. Squires takes over at a critical time, as the agency grapples with global competition from China and emerging legal challenges surrounding artificial intelligence in the patent process. His appointment follows a broad push by Senate Republicans to confirm a slate of Trump nominees despite Democratic opposition.Squires brings a deep background in both corporate and legal arenas, having worked on IP and tech issues at firms like Honeywell and most recently at Dilworth Paxson, where he focused on AI, blockchain, and cybersecurity. He has also taught at the University of Pennsylvania. His predecessor, Kathi Vidal, led the USPTO during the Biden administration and returned to private practice following Trump's 2024 election victory.The USPTO plays a vital role in the American innovation ecosystem, handling patent and trademark applications and advising the government on intellectual property policy. The agency's Patent Trial and Appeal Board frequently mediates high-stakes disputes over patent validity, especially in the tech sector. Squires steps into the role amid heightened political scrutiny, including a controversial Commerce Department order to review patents held by Harvard University as part of a broader White House campaign linked to campus antisemitism concerns.US Senate confirms Trump's pick to run US Patent and Trademark Office | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Gustav Mahler.This week's closing theme comes from one of the most enigmatic works in the orchestral repertoire: Mahler's Symphony No. 7, specifically its haunting first movement, Langsam – Allegro risoluto, ma non troppo. Composed between 1904 and 1905 and premiered on September 19, 1908, this symphony marks a fascinating midpoint in Mahler's artistic evolution—bridging the lush Romanticism of his earlier works with the more fractured, modernist terrain of his later symphonies.The first movement opens with a dark, slow introduction featuring the eerie voice of the tenor horn, an instrument rarely heard in symphonic writing. Its strange, searching call sets a tone of unease, as if the music is emerging from shadow. What follows is a restless march full of contrasts—grim fanfares, lyrical episodes, and bursts of uneasy energy—all presented with Mahler's characteristic sense of orchestral color and irony.Unlike the more spiritual or pastoral moods of Mahler's other symphonies, the Seventh is often described as "problematic," even "nightmarish"—a label Mahler himself rejected. He referred to the symphony as a progression “from night into day,” and this opening movement represents the beginning of that journey: turbulent, disoriented, and shot through with moments of beauty and menace.Mahler's orchestration here is dense and highly detailed, often requiring massive forces and unconventional instruments. Yet beneath its complexity lies a deep emotional current—one that shifts rapidly from the grotesque to the sublime. The movement ends not with resolution but with a kind of defiant uncertainty, a theme Mahler would continue to explore in his final works.As our closing theme this week, Langsam – Allegro reminds us that the path through darkness is rarely straightforward—and that art, like life, often resists tidy interpretation.Without further ado, Gustav Mahler's Langsam – Allegro risoluto, ma non troppo– enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Welcome to another episode of The Lindsey Anderson Show! Today, I'm diving into a topic that I'm sure many of you haven't thought much about: legal protections for your online content. As entrepreneurs and online business owners, we show up online every day—creating content, generating sales, and building our brands. But here's the real question: Is your business actually protected?The truth is, many entrepreneurs are losing money, missing opportunities, and even getting taken advantage of because they haven't protected their intellectual property. Whether you're posting on social media, creating content, or launching offers, you need to ensure that your work is legally protected. Today's guest, Robert Thony, is here to help us navigate this crucial area of business. He'll be sharing how to protect your intellectual property before it's too late. I'm so excited for you to hear this!Guest IntroductionRobert Thony is the founder of Tony Law and Entertainment, a firm that specializes in IP law and business law. With over a decade of experience, Robert has been helping entrepreneurs, creators, and online business owners protect their work and secure better deals.He's an expert in trademarks, copyrights, contracts, and negotiation strategies. Robert has worked with countless brands to ensure they're legally protected while continuing to grow. His goal is simple: to help businesses not only survive but thrive, all while being legally secure. Robert provides guidance on everything from brand protection to navigating the complexities of the digital world with legal insight. Let's dive into the conversation with Robert!Protect Your Brand and Business - Key TakeawaysProtect Your Brand Early: It's critical to get your business structure right from the start. Whether you're a consultant, or running a tech startup, choosing the right legal entity is key to protecting your business in the long run.Trademark Protection: Your brand name and logo should be protected from day one. Register them with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to prevent infringement and legal issues down the line.Trademark Search: Always conduct a comprehensive trademark search to make sure no one else is using a name or logo that's too similar to yours.Legal Structure Matters: The legal structure you choose for your business affects the kind of protection you need. For example, a service-based business will have different legal needs than a product-based business.Investment in Protection: While it costs $350 per mark to file a trademark application with the USPTO, it's a worthwhile investment to secure your brand's future. The process can take 9-12 months, but it's worth the wait for the protection it provides.Why Entrepreneurs Wait Too Long: Entrepreneurs often delay legal protection due to budget constraints or the desire to focus on marketing. However, failing to protect your brand early could lead to costly rebranding or legal disputes in the future.Client Example: The Cost of WaitingWe share a common example that happens way too often. A business owner starts using a name that's similar to another trademarked brand. At first, everything seems fine, but then, the clients start getting confused—some even reach out to the wrong business thinking they're contacting the right one.In these situations, the client may have to rebrand entirely, which is a huge financial and logistical burden. And sometimes, the other business already owns the trademark, which means they have the legal right to shut you down. This happens all the time, and it can set you back months, if not years, in your business journey.Key Quotes"If you're serious about business, you need to get this protection so that you're not wasting...

In this episode of Trending Now - An IP Podcast, Janet Cho and Courtney Reigel break down the recent fee changes announced by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). They explore what's changing, why it matters, and how these adjustments may impact trademark applicants, owners, and practitioners. Whether you're managing a portfolio or navigating the application process, this conversation offers practical insights into how to prepare for and respond to the updated fee structure.

On this episode of Brand & New, INTA Chief Policy Officer Heather Steinmeyer sits down with David Gooder, INTA's newly appointed Senior Advisor and former Commissioner for Trademarks at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In this insightful conversation recorded at INTA's 2025 Annual Meeting in San Diego, California, Ms. Steinmeyer and Mr. Gooder explore the evolving role of global intellectual property (IP) offices, as well as the delicate balance IP offices must strike between serving their users and advancing broader competitiveness goals. Mr. Gooder shares his unique perspective from both sides of the IP ecosystem, having worked as chief trademark counsel at Jack Daniels Properties before leading the USPTO's trademark operations through five transformative years. As he transitions into his new role helping INTA deepen collaboration with IP offices worldwide, this conversation offers valuable insights into the future of IP protection and the strategic importance of trademark systems in fostering global competitiveness. Resources:  About David Gooder INTA Welcomes David Gooder as Senior Advisor (INTA, May 2025) David Gooder to depart USPTO (USPTO, February 2025)  

https://www.dbllawyers.com/ 800.747.9354 In a fast-evolving technological era, artificial intelligence is transforming industries—and the legal field is no exception. On a recent episode of The Attorney Post, intellectual property attorney Thomas Dunlap of Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig joined the discussion to break down the legal complexities of AI, patent law, and the future of IP protection in a digital-first world. Thomas Dunlap leads a national law firm with nearly 80 attorneys and offices in Washington D.C., New York, Seattle, Chicago, and Delaware. His practice is rooted in intellectual property litigation, with a strong emphasis on patent portfolios held by inventors and universities. Dunlap represents patent holders in enforcement actions, often backed by litigation funders—a model that's becoming increasingly necessary as litigation costs continue to rise. Although Dunlap's background is in traditional IP law, he's become deeply involved in AI law due to the growing number of legal grey areas surrounding artificial intelligence. The lack of specific U.S. legislation governing AI, particularly in IP, is creating both opportunity and uncertainty for attorneys and innovators alike. A central issue Dunlap addresses is the legal identity of AI in the context of inventorship. As of now, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has clarified that while AI can assist in the invention process, only human beings can be listed as inventors. Consequently, AI-generated inventions are considered public domain unless a human makes the inventive leap. This has profound implications for businesses investing in AI-driven R&D. While countries like South Africa and Saudi Arabia have granted patents to AI systems, the U.S. remains firm in its human-inventor requirement—raising questions about international IP protection, ownership, and enforceability. The High Cost of Defending Innovation Beyond AI, Dunlap highlighted systemic flaws in the U.S. patent system. Small inventors, despite contributing to over 60% of innovation, are often outmatched by large tech companies. Patent litigation can easily cost $4–8 million, making it financially impossible for independent innovators to protect their ideas without support from litigation funders. Dunlap pointed to a high-profile case involving a small company's EKG monitoring technology being used in Apple Watches, underscoring how large corporations can leverage legal and financial muscle to challenge or invalidate legitimate patents. This is part of what he calls the “invalidated” era, where inventors face an uphill battle in enforcing their rights. AI's Disruptive Power in Legal Practice While AI poses legal dilemmas, it's also reshaping the way lawyers work. According to Dunlap, tools that previously required five associates over a week can now be accomplished by three associates in just five days, thanks to AI-enhanced e-discovery systems. But he warns that overreliance on AI for document review still carries risks—missed keywords or misinterpreted nuance can drastically affect outcomes. Moreover, Dunlap noted that courts may begin to limit AI training on copyrighted materials, potentially restricting the development of AI tools. If copyright constraints tighten, AI systems might only be able to train on pre-1950s content, greatly reducing their value and utility across industries. Thomas Dunlap's insights make it clear that the legal system is at a crossroads. The collision of AI and intellectual property is forcing courts, lawyers, and lawmakers to rethink longstanding definitions of creativity, authorship, and ownership. As AI continues to revolutionize industries, those at the forefront of IP law—like Dunlap—will be pivotal in shaping the future of innovation. Sponsors: RankWith.NewsThe Attorney PostNational ERCAndropology

Today, Jeff Harty and Drew Hirshfeld talk about the potential impact of the DOGE advisory board on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Their conversation covers how the office is funded and how the USPTO maintains productivity and handles the large backlog of patent applications. They also discuss the impact of the return-to-office executive order and the importance of hiring the best talent as patent examiners, wherever they're based.In this episode, Jeff Harty and Drew Hirshfeld discuss: The impact of the DOGE advisory board on the USPTO.Advantages of having a clear prosecution record in patent cases.How the hiring freeze and the return-to-office executive order affect those at the USPTO.Extensive productivity reports for USPTO examiners.The crossroads facing the USPTO.Key Takeaways: Those with senior roles at the USPTO often have two main goals: to improve the quality of work and to improve pendency—getting results of patent decisions to the applicants faster.If an examiner is clear as to why they are making decisions and an applicant can see what the examiner is doing, it is easier to understand what is happening. When it is not clear, the examiner and applicant can talk past each other, and that is where discrepancies will happen. Allowing for telework and work from home allows the USPTO to recruit top talent from around the country, not just in the immediate area of the office. The USPTO is unique in that it is entirely funded by user fees, not federal tax dollars.“I think that the USPTO's best quality initiative is its telework program, its ability for people to work at home, because you're able to choose people from a pool that's across the country now, as opposed to just in the Alexandria, Virginia, area.” —Drew HirshfeldAbout Drew Hirshfeld: Hirshfeld was a long-tenured employee of the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and was named one of Managing IP's Top 50 Most Influential People in IP in 2021 (Managing IP is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group). Hirshfeld began his career at the USPTO as a patent examiner in 1994 and has held a variety of senior management positions. He was named Commissioner for Patents in 2015 and performed the functions and duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO from January 2021 to April 2022. Most recently,Hirshfeld served as Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Deputy Director.Hirshfeld now brings his wealth of patent prosecution and litigation experience to Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner. His achievements included leading the USPTO's response to the Supreme Court's 2021 Arthrex decision by implementing a new process for director review of final written decisions from the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board; serving on the USPTO's Precedential Opinion Panel to decide issues of exceptional importance to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and overseeing extensive patent prosecution training for patent examiners and members of the public.While performing the functions and duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO, Hirshfeld was responsible for more than 13,000 employees and an annual budget of more than $4 billion. He was also responsible for all USPTO functions related to the examination and issuance of all patents. In addition, he championed the USPTO's mentoring program.Outside of work, Hirshfeld and his wife have three daughters. He enjoys woodworking to make things for his family, including an acoustic guitar, kitchen cabinets, and furniture.Connect with Drew Hirshfeld: Website: slwip.com Email: ahirshfeld@slwip.com LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/drew-hirshfeld Connect with Jeff Harty: Website: nyemaster.com/attorney-directory/jeffrey-d-hartyEmail: jharty@nyemaster.comLinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/jeff-harty-5a9a1643

In this episode, host Kara welcomes trademark attorney Courtney Alvarez, owner of CMA Trademarks and former USPTO examiner, to discuss the importance of trademark protection for businesses. From her journey transitioning from broadcast journalism to trademark law, to practical advice on protecting your brand, Courtney shares valuable insights for entrepreneurs considering trademark registration.Episode Topics:Courtney's career transition from broadcast journalism to trademark lawHer 11-year experience as a USPTO trademark examinerThe difference between trademarks and other intellectual property protectionsWhen and why businesses should consider trademark registrationStep-by-step process of trademark application and registrationImpact of COVID on trademark processing timelinesCommon trademark application mistakes and how to avoid themInsights:Best time to consider trademark registration is at the business planning stageBusinesses can file "intent to use" applications before actually launchingUSPTO processing times increased from 3 to 8 months post-COVIDTrademark registration enhances business value for potential future salesWorking with experienced trademark attorneys significantly increases approval chancesInitial DIY trademark searches on USPTO.gov can save time and moneyHighlights:00:00 Welcome and Intro00:40 Importance of Trademarks for Businesses 04:48 Career Path to Law and Intellectual Property 09:55 Career Development in Trademark Law 10:53 Transitioning to Entrepreneurship 14:25 Utilizing Past Experience in New Ventures 15:51 Understanding Trademarks and Their Importance 21:21 Trademark Search and Due Diligence 27:51 Trademark Application Process 32:52 Trademark Registration Process and Renewal 38:12 Trademark Law and Entrepreneurial Support 42:29 Podcast episode endedResources:USPTO.gov for preliminary trademark searchesCMA Trademarks website: cmatrademarks.comEmail: courtney@cmatrademarks.comConnect with Courtney on LinkedIn: Courtney M AlvarezCourtney M. Alvarez is the founder of CMA Trademarks, LLC, a boutique law firm providing high quality legal services to clients seeking federal trademark protection. Ms. Alvarez has a global client base ranging from small entrepreneurs to large corporations in all industries, including several clients that have been featured on the show Shark Tank. She uses her decade-plus experience as a Trademark Examining Attorney at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to help clients successfully register their brand names, logos, and slogans. In the last several years, Ms. Alvarez has been a featured speaker at the ALTLegal “I Love Trademarks” conference, developed a training course to “Search Trademarks like an Examiner,” and also acts as a consultant to attorneys new to the field of trademarks. Visit her website - cmatrademarks.com for trademark consultation and servicesContact Info - +1 202-843-0755Connect with Kara to share your thoughts on the series:Website - http://www.kcdrealestate.com/ Email - kara@kdcrealestate.com Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/karachaffindonofrio/ Facebook -...

SummaryIn this episode, Samar and Jamie discuss various resources for independent inventors. They highlight the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) website as a top resource, which provides information on patent basics, patent scams, and free services offered by the Patent Office. They also mention the Inventor Assistance Center and the Pro Bono Program, which are available through the USPTO. Other resources discussed include search tools like patents.google.com, PQ AI, Pantzilla, WIPO, and the European Patent Office. They also mention local inventor groups and inventor clubs, law schools and nonprofits that help inventors, and the book 'One Simple Idea' by Stephen Key as a great resource for patent licensing.TakeawaysThe USPTO website is a valuable resource for independent inventors. It provides information on patent basics, scams, and free services.Search tools like patents.google.com, PQ AI, Pantzilla, WIPO, and the European Patent Office can help with patent searches.Local inventor groups and clubs offer a supportive community and access to experienced inventors.Law schools and nonprofits can provide pro bono assistance to inventors.The book 'One Simple Idea' by Stephen Key is recommended for those interested in patent licensing.Chapters00:00 Introduction and Purpose of the Episode01:24 Top Resources for Independent Inventors05:37 Useful Patent Search Tools10:21 Joining Inventor Groups and Clubs13:39 Pro Bono Assistance from Law Schools and Nonprofits15:07 Recommended Book for Patent LicensingResourceshttps://www.uspto.gov/https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/inventors-entrepreneurs-resourceshttps://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/official-gazette/official-gazette-patentshttps://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/using-legal-services/pro-bono/patent-pro-bono-programhttps://patents.google.com/https://projectpq.ai/https://docs.ip-tools.org/patzilla/https://www.wipo.int/patentscope/en/https://www.epo.org/en/searching-for-patents/technical/espacenethttps://inventleader.org/inventor-groups/https://inventright.com/books/one-simple-idea/

Trademark scams are on the rise, threatening businesses with costly setbacks and legal risks. Hosts Michael Snyder and Joseph Gushue are joined Jason Lott, Managing Attorney for Trademark Customer Outreach at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), to expose the deceptive tactics scammers use and provide practical tips to safeguard your intellectual property. From misleading solicitations and fake invoices to fraudulent renewal notices, this episode unpacks scams at every stage of the trademark process—before filing, during application prosecution, and post-registration. Jason shares real-world examples, red flags to watch for, and actionable steps to protect your trademarks. With expert insights and USPTO resources at your disposal, you'll learn how to defend your brand against bad actors, navigate the trademark process confidently, and avoid falling victim to costly scams.  For full show notes and to explore more episodes, please visit www.vklaw.com/newsroom-podcasts. USPTO Resources to Protect Yourself and Your Business from Trademark Scams: Trademark Application Process: learn the steps involved and the timeline required for attaining trademark protections to avoid being duped. USPTO Recognizing Common Scams: explore the most common scamming tactics and what to be vigilant for throughout the process. USPTO - Misleading Solicitations: USPTO's updated list of known fraudulent solicitations. USPTO fee schedule: understand the fees associated with the legitimate trademark process. USPTO Trademark Assistance Center (TAC): get support for trademark-related queries and verification. USPTO - Trademark Protection: webinars and guides on recognizing and reporting scams. USPTO Subscription Center: subscribe to stay updated, on news, and resources from the USPTO. Key Moments & Quick Links: (1:06) Introduction to Trademark Scams and Hoaxes & Guest Introduction (4:17) Movies About Scams and Deception (9:30) Trademark Scams Overview: Before, During, and After Registration (10:25) Pre- Trademark Application Scams USPTO.gov (14:26) Sophistication of Scams (19:03) Unauthorized Practice of Law Trademark Application Process (23:47) Trademark Scams During Trademark Application Prosecution USPTO Official Payment Platform (31:18) Post-Registration Trademark Scams USPTO - Misleading Solicitations  (36:05) USPTO Resources for Recognizing and Avoiding IP Scams FCC on Spoofed Phone Calls USPTO fee schedule USPTO Trademark Assistance Center (TAC) USPTO - Trademark Protection (38:14) Final Thoughts

This Day in Legal History: Goodridge v. Department of HealthOn November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a historic decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, becoming the first court in the United States to rule that a state ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. In a narrow 4–3 decision, the court held that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples violated the Massachusetts Constitution's guarantees of equality and liberty. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall emphasized that marriage is a civil right and that excluding same-sex couples from this institution created a second-class status inconsistent with constitutional protections.The court ordered the Massachusetts legislature to take corrective action within 180 days, either by revising existing laws or crafting a new framework that would extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. Importantly, the ruling did not permit civil unions as a substitute for marriage, affirming that anything less than full marriage rights would perpetuate discrimination. This groundbreaking decision made Massachusetts the first state in the U.S. to legalize same-sex marriage, sparking national debates over marriage equality.The Goodridge decision laid the foundation for subsequent legal battles over marriage rights and catalyzed movements for LGBTQ+ equality nationwide. While celebrated as a milestone in civil rights history, the ruling also ignited opposition, prompting efforts to pass constitutional amendments to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Despite the controversy, Massachusetts began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in May 2004, cementing its role as a trailblazer in the fight for marriage equality.Former President Donald Trump's hush money criminal case is at a crossroads following his election victory. Trump was convicted in May of falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels during his 2016 campaign, but sentencing has been paused at the request of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Prosecutors must now propose how to proceed, balancing the political implications of prosecuting a president-elect with the need to uphold legal standards. Their recommendations are due Tuesday.Options for prosecutors include indefinitely delaying sentencing, postponing punishment until Trump exhausts appeals, or pursuing a sentence with minimal consequences, such as an unconditional discharge. Legal experts suggest Bragg is unlikely to seek aggressive penalties before the inauguration, given the potential political fallout.Trump's defense has long claimed the case is politically motivated, arguing that it should be dismissed to avoid unconstitutional interference with his presidency. They also contend that his actions are protected by presidential immunity, though the court has yet to rule on this argument. The judge, Justice Juan Merchan, will ultimately decide whether the case moves forward, with both sides expected to appeal any unfavorable decisions.What's next in Trump's hush money criminal case | ReutersFormer IRS Contractor Sentenced for Disclosing Tax Return Information to News Organizations | United States Department of JusticeKathi Vidal, outgoing director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), will rejoin her former law firm, Winston & Strawn, as a partner on December 16 after leaving the agency. Nominated by President Joe Biden in 2021, Vidal focused on policies addressing artificial intelligence (AI) in patents, international intellectual property (IP) issues, and diversity in innovation during her tenure. She emphasized transparency and patentability standards for AI-assisted inventions to promote innovation without stifling it.Deputy Director Derrick Brent will serve as acting director until President-elect Donald Trump appoints a replacement. Trump has not announced his pick, though his first-term USPTO head, Andrei Iancu, prioritized policies favoring patent owners. Vidal noted that IP policy tends to be less partisan and highlighted the agency's unique funding model, which relies on processing fees rather than taxpayer dollars.At Winston, Vidal will advise clients on tech-related legal issues, including AI, cybersecurity, and antitrust law, leveraging her USPTO experience. The firm's leadership praised her ability to guide clients through challenges posed by technological advances and geopolitical pressures. Vidal expressed her intention to continue shaping tech policy at the intersection of law and innovation.US Patent Office's Vidal returns to law firm Winston ahead of Trump term | ReutersSpirit Airlines Inc. has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy amid financial challenges and intense competition from rival carriers. The filing in New York lists the company's assets and liabilities as between $1 billion and $10 billion. Spirit's troubles escalated after a federal judge blocked its proposed $3.8 billion merger with JetBlue Airways Corp., citing antitrust concerns that the deal would harm budget-conscious travelers by raising ticket prices. Previous merger talks with Frontier Group Holdings Inc. also collapsed.The discount airline has faced increasing pressure from major carriers offering competitive basic economy fares, which have eroded Spirit's market share. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the company has posted consistent losses, with its stock plummeting 93% in 2023.Spirit's bankruptcy follows an agreement with bondholders on a debt restructuring plan. Bondholders will convert $795 million of debt into equity, take control of the company, and inject $350 million in fresh equity along with $300 million in debtor-in-possession financing to sustain operations during the bankruptcy process. The airline also plans to delist as part of the restructuring.In an effort to remain competitive, Spirit recently introduced upgrades such as extra legroom and free checked baggage to attract travelers seeking more premium options. However, these efforts have been insufficient to counter the financial strain. The case is being handled in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.Spirit Airlines (SAVE) Files Bankruptcy Following Failed JetBlue Tie-Up - BloombergThe U.S. Supreme Court announced it will release its first opinion of the term on November 22, earlier than in recent years, where the first opinions appeared in December or January. The specific case or cases to be decided have not been disclosed, but they are likely from the nine argued in the October session. These include issues like federal court jurisdiction, attorneys' fees, and the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies before suing in federal court. Complex cases, such as challenges to Biden's ghost gun regulations and an Oklahoma death penalty case, are expected to take longer.The timing recalls the court's earlier practice of releasing initial opinions in November, a pattern often attributed to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's quick writing pace. In contrast, recent terms have seen delays, with the first opinion in the 2022 term arriving as late as January 23, 2023, marking an unprecedented delay since the court's October term structure began in 1917.This term, the court has already agreed to hear 45 cases, avoiding controversial social issues and focusing on lower-profile matters. The November 22 release could include an opinion or even a dismissal of a case as “improvidently granted,” as suggested during recent arguments in an investor lawsuit against Nvidia.US Supreme Court Bucks Recent Trend, Announces Opinion ReleaseThe court ruling in Mem'l Hermann Accountable Care Org. v. Commissioner underscores the flaws in the current 501(c)(4) tax-exempt classification and the need for reform to address the issue of dark money in politics. This tax code section groups together vastly different organizations, from advocacy groups like the NRA to local sports leagues, under a single classification. The lack of clear, enforceable standards allows some organizations to exploit their tax-exempt status to fund political campaigns while avoiding donor disclosure. This lack of transparency fuels the dark money problem.501(c)(4) organizations can engage in political activity as long as it's not their primary purpose, a vague standard that has led to inconsistent enforcement by the IRS. The Fifth Circuit's decision in Mem'l Hermann challenges this leniency by applying a stricter “substantial nonexempt purpose” test, signaling a potential shift towards greater scrutiny of political spending by these organizations.One solution is creating a new tax-exempt subcategory—501(c)(4)(C)—for politically active social welfare groups. This would establish clearer rules, such as capping political expenditures at 50% of revenue and requiring donor disclosure for contributions above $10,000. It would also separate traditional social welfare organizations from politically active ones, reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens on the former.Breaking 501(c)(4) into more specific classifications would ensure that transparency requirements target politically active organizations without disrupting community-focused groups. It would also help regulatory bodies focus enforcement efforts and prevent misuse of tax exemptions for untraceable political contributions. This reform aligns with public demand for accountability in campaign finance while preserving the integrity of non-political nonprofits.In sum, the 501(c)(4) designation is problematic as currently drafted because it combines a wide variety of organizations with vastly different purposes under the same tax code section. This allows political advocacy groups to hide behind the same classification as traditional social welfare organizations, avoiding stricter scrutiny. This structural ambiguity hampers transparency efforts, suggesting the need to separate these groups into distinct categories for effective regulation.Getting Rid of Dark Money Requires a New Tax-Exempt Designation This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode, we are joined by Andrei Iancu, former Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and former Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), to discuss whether AI-generated works can be copyrighted (15:52), what the latest USPTO guidance means for the patent subject matter eligibility of AI systems (22:31), who can claim inventorship for AI-facilitated inventions (36:00), and the use of AI by patent and trademark applicants and the USPTO (53:43).

Examiners at the Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) typically have to look at thousands of documents to determine whether an application is valid. Thanks to Federal Drive Host Tom Temin's guest, those examiners now have artificial intelligence tools to work faster and more accurately. For his work, he's a finalist in this year's Service to America Medals program, and the first of the finalist interviews we will be bringing you this year. Talking with Temin is the Director of Emerging Technology and Chief AI Officer at USPTO, Jerry Ma. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Examiners at the Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) typically have to look at thousands of documents to determine whether an application is valid. Thanks to Federal Drive Host Tom Temin's guest, those examiners now have artificial intelligence tools to work faster and more accurately. For his work, he's a finalist in this year's Service to America Medals program, and the first of the finalist interviews we will be bringing you this year. Talking with Temin is the Director of Emerging Technology and Chief AI Officer at USPTO, Jerry Ma. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

John Harmon is a shareholder in both the Mechanical and Chemical & Materials Technologies Practices at  Wolf Greenfield. He represents clients in industry and academia in a wide range of technologies related to the mechanical, materials, and chemistry fields. One area of particular interest these days is the evolving impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on intellectual property matters. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently issued its “Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions.” This guidance is pursuant to President Biden's Executive Order last fall on the “safe, secure, and trustworthy development and use of AI.”In this edition of IP Talk with Wolf Greenfield, John Harmon offers perspective on these early days of AI application.01:06 - A summary of the latest guidance from the USPTO06:05 - An overview of the Thaler v. Vidal case06:53 - What further action might be taken in the future to address the President's concerns?09:01 - What constitutes an "invention" and how does AI muddy the waters?11:59 - File earlier rather than later12:52 - Simply applying AI to a problem doesn't constitute patentable subject matter14:29 - The issues that need to be considered when AI and robotics are used together16:13 - Suggestions for moving forward with AI###

This Day in Legal History: Patent Act ApprovedOn April 10, 1790, a significant milestone in U.S. legal and innovation history was reached when Congress approved America's first Patent Act. This foundational legislation was instrumental in laying the groundwork for the protection of intellectual property in the United States, a concept that has become a cornerstone of the modern global economy. The Patent Act of 1790 empowered inventors with the "sole and exclusive right and liberty of making, constructing, using and vending to others" their inventions, providing them with a fourteen-year period of protection. This period was designed to incentivize innovation while balancing the public's interest in the eventual free use of inventions. Moreover, the Act led to the creation of the U.S. Patent Board, marking the establishment of an official body responsible for the examination and awarding of patents. This entity is recognized as the precursor to today's U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), an institution that plays a pivotal role in the protection of intellectual property rights and the encouragement of technological advancement and creativity. The enactment of the Patent Act of 1790 not only recognized the importance of protecting inventors' rights but also set the stage for the United States to become a global leader in innovation and economic development.The EPA recently established the first-ever drinking water standards for PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), commonly referred to as "forever chemicals," due to their persistence in the environment. This rule aims to reduce exposure to these carcinogenic substances, affecting up to 6,700 utilities and potentially benefiting around 100 million Americans. Specifically, the EPA has set an enforceable limit of 4 parts per trillion for two primary PFAS compounds—PFOA and PFOS—and a non-enforceable goal of zero exposure due to associated health risks, including cancer. Additionally, a limit of 10 parts per trillion is applied to three other PFAS categories, covering compounds like PFNA, PFHxS, and GenX chemicals.This regulatory action reflects growing concern over PFAS presence in approximately 45% of U.S. drinking water sources, posing significant risks to public health. Utilities will be mandated to monitor, reduce, and notify customers of PFAS levels exceeding these new limits, incorporating advanced treatment technologies such as granular activated carbon and reverse osmosis for removal.To support compliance, the federal government has allocated about $1 billion for PFAS testing and removal, with an additional $12 billion for broader drinking water system improvements. The implementation of these standards represents a critical step by the Biden-Harris Administration towards ensuring environmental justice and safeguarding clean water, contrasting with the World Health Organization's less stringent PFAS guidelines.However, compliance is expected to be costly, with estimates suggesting an annual financial burden of up to $3.8 billion for water utilities. This financial challenge underscores the broader issue of funding essential infrastructure updates and addressing emerging contaminants, highlighting a significant shift in regulatory approach to protect public health from PFAS contamination.Final PFAS Drinking Water Rule to Affect Up to 6,700 UtilitiesUS sets first standard to curb 'forever chemicals' from drinking water | ReutersThe litigation involving Donald Trump's merger with a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) concerning his social media platform, Truth Social, has been assigned to Vice Chancellor Morgan T. Zurn in Delaware Chancery Court, known for her experience with meme stock litigation. This case is among four lawsuits filed over the Trump-Truth Social merger, plus an additional insider trading case. Despite an attempt to block the merger, it concluded in March, leading to an initial surge in Trump Media & Technology Group Corp.'s value, which later saw a significant decline, diminishing billions in value.By way of very brief background, a SPAC operates as a shell corporation designed solely to merge with a private company, thereby taking it public (that is, listing its shares for trade publicly on the market) without going through the traditional and often lengthy initial public offering (IPO) process. SPACs are initially created by a group of investors—often led by a seasoned entrepreneur or business executive—known as the sponsors, who raise capital through an IPO of the SPAC itself, even though it has no existing business operations. The funds raised are placed into a trust account, and the SPAC is given a predetermined timeframe, typically 18 to 24 months, to identify and complete a merger with a target company. If the merger is successfully executed within the allotted time, the target company becomes public as a result. However, if the SPAC fails to find a suitable company to merge with or the shareholders disapprove of the proposed merger, the SPAC is dissolved, and the funds are returned to the investors. This mechanism provides a faster, albeit sometimes riskier, alternative to the traditional IPO, offering private companies a streamlined path to public market access and investors a unique investment opportunity tied to the SPAC sponsors' expertise and the potential of the target company.Vice Chancellor Zurn, recognized for her adept handling of cases involving meme stock traders and complex market manipulation theories, now faces the Truth Social lawsuit, highlighting the increasing intersection of retail trading phenomena with legal disputes in the corporate sector. This case centers on allegations that Trump wrongfully diluted the equity of two former "The Apprentice" contestants who co-founded Trump Media, with Trump counter-suing to cancel their shares. The legal battle involves claims of breach of fiduciary duties and retaliatory actions against the co-founders, with new complaints recently allowed to be updated.The assignment of this high-profile case to Zurn underlines the Delaware Chancery Court's role as a crucial arena for major corporate and shareholder disputes, now expanded to include the unique challenges posed by the involvement of meme stock traders. The outcome of this litigation could have broader implications for corporate governance, investor rights, and the regulation of digital and social media ventures in the rapidly evolving landscape of retail trading and online community-driven investment strategies.Trump SPAC Litigation Heads to Judge With Meme Stock ExperienceA Russian court has upheld a significant fine against Google, rejecting the tech giant's appeal against a 4.6 billion rouble ($49.4 million) penalty. This fine was imposed for Google's failure to delete content that the Russian government deems to be false information about the conflict in Ukraine. The decision comes amid ongoing tensions between Russia and foreign tech companies over issues of content censorship, particularly following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.The Moscow City Court confirmed the decision made by the Tagansky District Court, effectively leaving Google's challenge unsatisfied. The fine also pertains to Google's inability to remove extremist content and what the Russian authorities label as LGBT propaganda, indicating a broader crackdown on the digital content distributed by international tech firms within Russia.Notably, Google's YouTube platform, while under scrutiny, has not faced the same fate as Twitter and Facebook, which have been blocked in Russia. This penalty against Google is part of a series of fines based on the company's annual turnover in Russia, with Google facing increasing financial penalties over similar issues in the past. This ruling underscores the escalating conflict between the Russian government and global technology companies over the control and regulation of online content and freedom of expression.Russian court rejects Google's appeal against $50-mln fine over Ukraine content | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Dive into the rich history of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) with this episode of IP Goes Pop!®, guided by USPTO historian Rebecca Oakes and co-hosted by Intellectual Property Attorneys Michael Snyder and Joseph Gushue. Explore the USPTO's impact on innovation and the integration of patent rights into the Constitution, highlighted through connections to pop culture icons like National Treasure and Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. Rebecca shares insights into the USPTO's archives, the digitization of historical patents, and the agency's ongoing efforts to chronicle America's innovation story. The episode invites listeners to discover the USPTO's resources, offering a glimpse into the past and its influence on modern intellectual property protections. Concluding with an inspirational message, the episode emphasizes the role of history in shaping future innovations. Tune into IP Goes Pop!® for more episodes that blend intellectual property insights with pop culture. Connect with USPTO social: Facebook LinkedIn Instagram Twitter (X) Key Moments: (01:15) US Patent Office Episodes with IP Goes Pop (01:24) IP in Pop-Culture History: Famous Movies  TV Shows (08:02) Introducing USPTO Historian Rebecca Oakes (13:07) History of Patent Models (Required through 1870's) (14:43) Curating History & Henry Baker (24:03) Initiatives the Patent Office Does to Protect its History (27:43) USPTO Resources for History (31:33) Final Thoughts For full show notes and to explore more episodes, please visit www.vklaw.com/newsroom-podcasts. You can stay connected with us on Facebook, Linkedin or Twitter, and Instagram using the handle @volpeandkoenig.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently got rid of their old trademark searching website called TESS. In this episode learn how to use the new and improved government trademark search website to see if the name of your product, business, or service has already been taken! -------- E-mail: adiament@nolanheimann.com Website: https://www.nolanheimann.com/legal-team/adam-diament Phone/Text: (424)281-0162 YouTube Channel LinkedIn  

Deborah Stephens, the Deputy Chief Information Officer for the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), “grew up” so to speak in the USPTO. Deborah led the USPTO on its agile journey. As the agency took on its “New Ways of Working, '' by moving people and resources closer to the work, she helped empower employees to build and deploy software. Deborah shares how she guided the agency through this 4-year change journey, gaining buy-in from the organization, which was proved by an engagement rate increase from 75% to 85%. Deborah also talks about what it means to be a HISP, running USPTO as a business that is entirely self-sustaining, and, in honor of Women's History Month, the women who have inspired her along the way.Key Topics05:54 Some embraced digital change, others struggled with it08:53 Most employees were ready for telework10:59 USPTO shifts to agile approach for IT16:41 Gathering feedback led to 10% engagement increase23:50 Customers submit 600,000+ patent and trademark applications yearly26:51 Agency conducts outreach through webinars and trademarks31:06 Customer experience and UX processes are fundamental33:45 USPTO offers different fee structures for entities35:30 USPTO runs efficiently with prioritization and budgeting39:43 Acknowledging strong women, personally and professionally43:21 Seek guidance and practice for successGrowth in Patent and Trademark RequestsSurge in Applications at USPTODeborah Stephens highlights a significant increase in the number of patent and trademark applications received by the USPTO over the years. This growth, from approximately 350,000 to 400,000 applications in 2012, with numbers continuing to rise, underscores the vibrant culture of innovation and creativity in the United States. The upward trend of applications is a positive sign of the country's ongoing commitment to innovation. However, it also presents logistical challenges for the USPTO. Including the need to process a higher volume of applications efficiently while ensuring the quality of examination does not diminish.Transition to New Ways of Working in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: "And so in around late 2018, 19, we began our, what we referred to as our agile journey. We named it our New Ways of Working, which essentially is an entire USPTO effort. Including our business unit with 12 other business units, moving people and the resources closer to the work. Giving them that empowerment, to build, deliver, deploy software, product services for our business stakeholders, and that's both internally and externally." — Deborah StephensUSPTO is Adapting to Increased DemandIn response to the growing demand for intellectual property protection, the USPTO has been proactive in seeking ways to maintain and improve service delivery. Deborah discusses the agency's approach to managing the influx of applications, focusing on scalability and efficiency. Despite the challenges posed by the increase in applications, the USPTO's designation as a High Impact Service Provider (HISP) has had minimal impact on its existing customer experience strategy. The agency's foundational commitment to delivering exceptional service to inventors and entrepreneurs remains steadfast. With an emphasis on continuous improvement and the adoption of new strategies to better meet the needs of the U.S. innovation community.USPTO's Fee-Funded Model and Fiscal StrategyUSPTO's Fee-Funded OperationsDeborah highlights the United States Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) operational model, which is uniquely self-sufficient. Relying entirely on fees collected from patent and trademark applications.

The US Department of Commerce is responsible for promoting economic growth, job creation, and international trade. It has a wide range of responsibilities and 13 different bureaus and offices. These include Census Bureau, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and others. The CIO The post Advancing Technology and Innovation Forward at DOC: Interview with André Mendes, CIO of Department of Commerce [GovFuture Podcast] appeared first on GovFuture.

In business and technology, speed is key. This is especially true in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), where seconds matter to all the innovators submitting patent applications. In this episode, Jamie Holcombe, CIO of the USPTO, explains how his team is using new technology and working faster on a network that will keep up with the products and technologies inventors are hoping to bring to market. Tune in to learn:What is the USPTO? (1:20)How new technology is used to help evaluate patent applications (6:30)The importance of having a reliable and fast network (16:30)Cybersecurity at the USPTO (21:25)--Zayo connects critical data centers across the US, Canada, and Europe with high-capacity metro fiber and extensive long-haul dark fiber. Trusted by the world's most innovative companies, Zayo embodies what's next in networking.Discover Zayo's expansive network maps on their website and see where their network can take you. With low-latency, reliable, 400G and 800G-enabled routes, it's the modern network solution you've been searching for.Visit Zayo's website today to unlock the power of your network and tap into the technologies of tomorrow. Go to Zayo.com/network now.Mission.org is a media studio producing content for world-class clients. Learn more at mission.org.

This episode of IP Goes Pop!®, takes you on a journey through the iconic world of the Barbie universe and brand, exploring its deep-rooted connections with pop culture and intellectual property law. Hop in the dream car and journey with Volpe Koenig Shareholders and podcast hosts, Michael Snyder and Joseph Gushue to a land of pink corvettes, with a few pitstops at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Kicking off with a discussion of the recent cinematic triumphs of the Barbie movie released this year (2023), your hosts delve into how this classic brand has been brought to life on the big screen captivating audiences around the globe. Travel back in time to the inception of Mattel Toys to unravel the origin of Barbie, and the complex legal history behind the doll's inception and success. Learn the true story behind the doll's “inspiration.” Discover how storied brands like Barbie have been able to register colors with their trademarks along with the legal parameters and precedents for doing so.  Listeners will navigate through the pivotal role of patents in safeguarding the Barbie doll brand, highlighting the contributions of rocket scientist turned toy doll inventor, John Ryan, and the key developments in toy doll mobility. Barbie's IP journey continues with your hosts exploring a legal battle involving trade secrets, focusing on the fierce competition between Mattel and MGA Entertainment over the Bratz dolls. Here the focus is on the critical concepts of "work for hire," "non-disclosure agreements," and “exit interviews,” as keys to protecting trade secrets in any industry. Approaching the end of this enlightening journey, Michael and Joe explore the intersection of copyright law and the Barbie brand, analyzing the legal nuances of parody in copyright law through the lens of the infamous "Barbie Girl" song by Aqua and its repercussions in the legal world. They also touch upon the 2023 updated, “Barbie World” by Nicki Minaj and Ice Spice, which samples Aqua's song, offering a fresh perspective on the ever-evolving relationship between pop culture and IP law. The episode wraps up with final thoughts on the complex yet fascinating relationship between the Barbie brand and all aspects of intellectual property law, celebrating the impressive achievements of Barbie in the world of IP. Tune in to this episode of IP Goes POP! and immerse yourself in the captivating (legal) world of Barbie, a brand that has left an indelible mark on both pop culture and the realm of intellectual property. Key Moments in this Episode: 1:44 The Barbie Movie (2023) 3:46 Genesis of Mattel Toys and the Barbie Brand 7:58 IP in the Barbie Universe: Trademarks 12:05 IP in the Barbie Universe: Patents 19:05 IP in the Barbie Universe: Trade Secrets 24:20 IP in the Barbie Universe: Copyright 29:56 Final Thoughts   For full show notes and to explore more episodes, please visit www.vklaw.com/newsroom-podcasts. You can stay connected with us on Facebook, Linkedin or Twitter, and Instagram using the handle @volpeandkoenig.

On this day in history, September 1, 1807, Aaron Burr, former Vice President and notable shooter of Alexander Hamilton, was acquitted of treason. Aaron Burr's 1807 treason trial was a landmark case and one of the earliest tests of the U.S. Constitution's Treason Clause, outlined in Article III, Section 3. The clause was carefully crafted to limit the charge of treason to the most serious of crimes, requiring "the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act" for a conviction. The trial featured key figures from the Constitutional Convention, including Edmund Randolph and Luther Martin, who were part of Burr's defense team. President Thomas Jefferson, who was convinced of Burr's guilt, directed the prosecution.Burr was arrested in Alabama after being rejected by both major political parties: the Democratic-Republicans for opposing Jefferson in the 1800 presidential election, and the Federalists for killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel. He had moved west to seek better fortunes and was involved in a plot to seize lands in Louisiana and Mexico. His plot was exposed when General James Wilkinson, a longtime friend, turned against him and informed federal authorities.Chief Justice John Marshall, a political adversary of Jefferson, presided over the trial. In an unprecedented move, Marshall issued a subpoena to President Jefferson to provide documents for Burr's defense, which Jefferson partially ignored. The trial hinged on whether Burr had committed an "overt act" of treason. Testimony revealed that Burr was 100 miles away from Blennerhassett's Island on the Ohio River, where the government claimed he was planning an act of treason. Marshall instructed the jury to focus solely on whether an act of war had been conducted on the island, citing an earlier related case, Ex parte Bollman.The jury quickly acquitted Burr, stating he was "not proved to be guilty under this indictment by any evidence submitted to us." Jefferson was so infuriated by the acquittal that he reportedly wanted to bring impeachment charges against Marshall, echoing a failed attempt in 1805 to impeach Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase. Interestingly, Aaron Burr had presided over Chase's acquittal as Vice President. The trial revealed the complexities and limitations of the Treason Clause, and it also exposed the personal and political animosities between key figures of the era.U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas disclosed that Republican megadonor Harlan Crow funded his travel expenses for three trips last year. This is the first time in two decades that Thomas has reported travel funded by Crow, a Dallas real estate developer. The justice also revealed that he sold three properties to Crow in 2014, a transaction he had previously failed to disclose. These disclosures come after a series of ProPublica reports earlier this year that scrutinized Thomas's financial ties to Crow, including luxury vacations and real estate transactions.In a statement, Thomas's attorney Elliot Berke refuted the allegations, calling them a "partisan feeding frenzy" and stating that the attacks were motivated by disagreement with Thomas's judicial philosophy. Thomas also noted that he did not report earlier vacations with Crow due to new rules adopted by the federal judiciary this year. He added that he had arranged for private transportation to an event in May following an "increased security risk" related to a leaked draft opinion on Roe v. Wade.Thomas also corrected previous omissions in his financial disclosures, including bank accounts and a life insurance policy for his wife, Virginia "Ginni" Thomas. He stated that Crow had paid $133,000 for the three properties in Savannah, Georgia, in 2014, resulting in a capital loss for him and his wife.The disclosure has heightened scrutiny around the ethics and transparency of the Supreme Court, especially as public confidence in the court has declined amid various controversies. Congressional Democrats and advocacy groups have filed ethics complaints against Thomas, but no action or updates have been announced by the Committee on Financial Disclosure, which oversees the reporting process for justices and lower court judges.Justice Clarence Thomas Reports Trips Paid for by GOP Donor (2)US Supreme Court's Thomas flew on GOP donor's jet, cites security risks | ReutersA federal judge has sentenced former Proud Boys leaders Joseph Biggs and Zachary Rehl to 17 and 15 years in prison, respectively, for their roles in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. They were convicted of seditious conspiracy in an attempt to overturn Donald Trump's 2020 election loss. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly's sentences were lower than the 33-year and 30-year terms that federal prosecutors had sought. Kelly stated that while he did not want to minimize the violence of the event, it was not equivalent to a mass casualty incident.Before their sentencing, both Biggs and Rehl expressed regret for their actions. Biggs choked up as he spoke about his daughter, who he said needs him, while Rehl broke down, stating that he had let politics consume his life. Prosecutors had partly based their sentencing recommendation for Rehl on evidence that he committed perjury during the trial.Judge Kelly agreed that the conduct of Biggs and Rehl amounted to an act of terrorism but did not apply a terrorism enhancement to the sentences, stating it "overstates the conduct" at issue. The sentences are among the most stringent handed down in relation to the Capitol attack. To date, more than 1,100 people have been arrested, over 630 have pleaded guilty, and at least 110 have been convicted at trial for charges related to the Capitol assault. The attack resulted in five deaths, including a police officer, and injuries to more than 140 police officers.Judge sentences ex-Proud Boys leaders to 17 and 15-year terms for US Capitol attack | ReutersApple and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) have settled a lawsuit over the rejection of Apple's application for a federal trademark for the term "Smart Keyboard." The dispute was resolved in principle, according to a joint filing, although details of the settlement were not immediately available. Apple's Smart Keyboard serves as an iPad cover, keyboard, and stand. The USPTO initially rejected Apple's trademark application for the term in 2018, and its Trademark Trial and Appeal Board upheld the decision in 2021. The board found that "Smart Keyboard" was a generic term for "technologically advanced keyboards."Apple appealed the decision to a Virginia federal court last year, arguing that "Smart Keyboard" was a distinctive trade name for its accessory. The company also pointed out that the USPTO had approved hundreds of other "Smart" trademarks, including Apple's own "Smart Cover," "Smart Case," and "Smart Connector" marks for iPad accessories. In response, the USPTO reiterated its stance that "Smart Keyboard" is a generic term and therefore ineligible for a federal trademark.The case had been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Representatives for both Apple and the USPTO did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the settlement. The resolution puts an end to a legal battle that had implications for trademark law and the tech industry.Apple, USPTO settle lawsuit over rejected 'Smart Keyboard' trademark | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Hosts Michael Snyder and Joseph Gushue are joined by: Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Kathi Vidal; Executive Director of the National Crime Prevention Council, Paul DelPonte; and the legendary McGruff the Crime Dog®. Our guests share their insights on the impact of counterfeits on society, the economy, and individual safety. The panel kicks off with a discussion of public service characters and their roles in environmental awareness and education. The panel then explores the issue of counterfeit goods. Here, the panel considers the impact of counterfeit goods on children, society, how counterfeit goods can be connected to organized crime, and how IP is involved in combating this global problem. Director Vidal provides insights into the role of the USPTO in protecting consumers from the dangers of counterfeit goods and highlights the importance of educating consumers about the real-world risks associated with counterfeit products. Listeners will learn about the "Go for Real" campaign, a joint initiative by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC), aimed at educating the public, particularly teens and tweens, about the risks associated with counterfeit products and the importance of making smart buying decisions and respecting intellectual property rights. Director DelPonte shares his experiences leading NCPC and the organization's efforts to promote greater civic engagement and public education on crime prevention. We hear from both him and McGruff about using the power of the internet to reach and empower a new generation to “Take A Bite Out Of Crime®.” You'll learn about ways you, your colleagues, and even your kids can become “dupe detectives” and improve your ability to spot fakes. Produced by the United States Patent and Trademark Office; no copyright is claimed by the United States in this presentation or associated materials. Resources provided by the USPTO and NCPC: Kathi Vidal | USPTO Paul-DelPonte_bio.pdf (ncpc.org) https://www.uspto.gov/ https://www.ncpc.org/ McGruff the Crime Dog® teams up with USPTO to take a bite out of fake goods sold online | USPTO Shop Smart and Stay Safe This Season | U.S. Department of Commerce  Roundtable: Future strategies in anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy | USPTO   For full show notes and to explore more episodes, please visit www.vklaw.com/newsroom-podcasts. You can stay connected with us on Facebook, Linkedin or Twitter, and Instagram using the handle @volpeandkoenig.

Webcast URL: https://knowledgewebcasts.com/know-portfolio/exploring-ai-patent-landscape-cle/ Inventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) continue to raise challenges for patentability of AI-related inventions. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court recently rejected an attempt to name an AI system as the sole inventor on a patent application. In light of this and the rapid development of AI systems, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) requested public comments on a wide range of topics relating to AI and the patent system. In addition, AI raises difficult questions about whether AI-related inventions qualify as patentable subject matter, how to describe AI-related inventions in ways that satisfy the written description and enablement requirements, and how to demonstrate that AI-related inventions are nonobvious. These and other developments underscore the need for patent owners and businesses alike to stay updated with emerging regulatory trends and take proactive measures against improper inventorship. Listen as experienced patent attorneys Robert Plotkin (Blueshift IP) and Orlando Lopez (Culhane Meadows Haughian & Walsh PLLC) provide a comprehensive discussion of the current and emerging patent policies and procedures for AI-related inventions. Speakers, among other things, will provide practical tips and strategies for navigating this ever-changing regulatory landscape. For more information please click on the webcast URL at the top of this description.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) is an administrative court at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Erik explains what the TTAB is, the types of cases it handles, and how it functions in this podcast. Listen to Podcast The post What Is the TTAB? appeared first on Erik M Pelton & Associates, PLLC.

Eli is joined by colleague Shawn Lillemo, Head of Software Development at their firm Harrity, to talk about the firm's tech journey.  Shawn and Eli talk about why and how the firm started its own software development team to create tools to improve how it handles its patent preparation and prosecution work, Shawn's superstar team in Ukraine, the future role of AI, and much more: The slow embrace of technology by patent firms United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)'s adoption of technology and where they are now How Shawn's background as an attorney, patent examiner, and creating software for his college's facilities department led him to his current role First macro created for Harrity Creation of Patentprufer - a tool for tracking information about patent examiners Lessons learned from building an enterprise software team at a law firm Stories about Shawn's team building its first software tools How Shawn's team in Ukraine has managed to continue to successfully develop software during the war Funneling and prioritizing endless amount of ideas to create valuable software patent tools Five year journey of creating and launching PatentHub, Harrity's enterprise task management system Whether AI will replace patent attorneys  

On this day in legal history the landmark Supreme Court decision of Sweatt v. Painter was decided. In 1946, Heman Marion Sweatt, an African American man, applied to the all-white University of Texas School of Law but was denied admission based on his race. This decision was made in accordance with the segregated policy outlined in Article VII, Section 7 of the Texas Constitution. Sweatt took legal action with the support of the NAACP, seeking enrollment at the university. Initially, a temporary law school called the School of Law of the Texas State University for Negroes was established for black students. It provided access to resources such as the Texas Supreme Court library and had faculty members from the University of Texas School of Law. Sweatt's case was dismissed by a state court after the black law school was established. However, Sweatt appealed to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that the Texas admissions system violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. On June 5, 1950, the Supreme Court ruled that in states where white students had access to graduate and professional schools while black students did not, black students must be admitted to the white institutions. This decision led to Sweatt's admission to the University of Texas School of Law, along with the enrollment of other black students in subsequent years. The impact of the case was limited to graduate and professional programs at the University of Texas, as black undergraduate students were still not admitted, although graduate students could take undergraduate courses if necessary for their program.With Sweatt v. Painter and another case, McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, the Supreme Court began the long process of overturning the separate but equal doctrine in public education–first by requiring graduate and professional schools to admit black students.Law school applications in the United States have returned to normalcy after the pandemic-induced surge in 2021. The number of applicants has decreased for the second consecutive year, indicating that the previous year's increase was an anomaly attributed to COVID-19. As of Thursday, law school applicants were down by 2.4% compared to the previous year. The Law School Admission Council expects the national applicant pool for this cycle to be slightly smaller than the year before, which was already 12% smaller than in 2021. The decrease in applications aligns with the trend of the past five years, where the number of applicants remained relatively consistent. The increase in applications in 2021 was attributed to various factors, including the disruption of the job market for college graduates caused by the pandemic, protests over racial inequality, and the political climate. The pool of law school applicants continues to become more diverse, with applicants of color comprising 46.5% of the current pool. It's a 'return to normalcy' for law school admissions | ReutersThe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has dismissed 42 enforcement cases after discovering that its enforcement staff had unauthorized access to materials intended for commission officials handling those cases. The SEC conducted a review of the matter, which was initially raised in April 2022 when it was revealed that certain databases allowed enforcement staff to view legal materials meant for the in-house court officials. The SEC acknowledged the error and expressed regret, emphasizing its commitment to rectify the situation. The improper access was deemed accidental, as administrative staff in the enforcement arm unintentionally accessed adjudication materials while collecting relevant information. An internal review concluded that the improper access had no impact on the decisions made by the enforcement staff or the officials reviewing the cases. However, the SEC decided to dismiss all pending cases that were affected by the improper access, primarily involving individuals and smaller firms. Additionally, the SEC agreed to lift industry bans on 48 individuals who had requested relief from the agency and were also implicated in the incident.US SEC to dismiss 42 enforcement cases after internal data mishap | ReutersThe US Solicitor General has admitted to misleading the Supreme Court in a 2017 patent case involving Nike and Adidas. The misrepresentation occurred during an argument about the validity of inter partes review, a process that allows the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to reexamine issued patents. By way of very brief background, inter partes review is a process in the United States patent system that allows a third party to challenge the validity of an issued patent before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). It provides a mechanism for reviewing and potentially invalidating patents based on prior art and other grounds, offering an alternative to litigation in resolving patent disputes. In this case, the Solicitor General apologized, stating that the USPTO failed to alert them about the mistake. This is not the first time the Solicitor General has corrected statements made to the justices. The admission came in the context of a separate whistleblower dispute raised by Judge Michael Fitzpatrick, who expressed concerns about attempts to expand the number of judges in the Nike case. The Merit Systems Protection Board ruled in favor of the judge, noting that the Solicitor General's office was not made aware of the potential mistake. The government acknowledged the need for absolute candor and accuracy in its representations to the Court. Solicitor General Office Admits It Misled Court in Patent CaseThe estate of J.R.R. Tolkien, the renowned author of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, has filed a copyright lawsuit in Los Angeles federal court against author Demetrious Polychron. The estate accuses Polychron of writing and selling an unauthorized sequel titled "The Fellowship of the King." The lawsuit comes after Polychron himself filed a copyright suit against the Tolkien Trust and Amazon Inc., alleging infringement of his sequel's copyrights following the release of the TV series "The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power." The estate discovered Polychron's unauthorized sequel online in March and sent a cease-and-desist letter. Despite the estate's policy of not licensing writers to create sequels, Polychron persisted in pitching his written sequel. The estate attempted to resolve the dispute through a call, but Polychron continuously postponed, citing illness and instead Polychron filed a lawsuit against the Tolkien Estate and others. The estate's complaint states that Polychron's sequel incorporates various copyright-protected elements from the original trilogy, including verbatim passages, characters, and the entire plot premise. Online reviews of the sequel suggest that readers were aware it was an unauthorized derivative work.Tolkien Estate Sues Over Unauthorized ‘Lord of the Rings' Sequel Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Michael Glenn and Colin Fowler sit down with Molly Kocialski, the director of the Rocky Mountain region of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as she shares stories about innovation in the climate tech space and programs at the USPTO that incentivize further discovery. Molly explains the value of research and quantification when pursuing end solutions.

On this episode of the Startup of the Year Podcast, we hear an interview with Hope Shimabuku that took place at SXSW. Hope is the Regional Director of the Texas Regional United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), where she carries out the strategic direction of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO, and is responsible for leading the Texas regional office. Focusing on the region and actively engaging with the community, Hope ensures the USPTO's initiatives and programs are tailored to the region's unique ecosystem of industries and stakeholders.   We also again mention an event that we have coming up on May 15 - 18, 2023. The SBA will host the second America's Seed Fund Week. This series of virtual events connects startups and small businesses working on advanced technologies to the country's largest source of early-stage funding. America's Seed Fund serves as a springboard by providing over $4 billion in funding to early-stage startups and small businesses each year as innovators take their technology from R&D through to commercialization. Check out more about the event and register today at: https://www.americasseedfund.us    Lastly, we again shine a spotlight on one of the startups from our community and that company is Stack Homes, which builds luxury modular dwellings designed for the imaginative and conscious home buyer while responding to the environmental and housing crises. They are sustainable, uniquely stackable, timely and built-to-order. Offering industry-leading designs and customer-centric white glove service throughout the process, Stack Homes is revolutionizing the residential construction industry. To learn more visit https://www.stackhomes.com    We invite you all to join our community today to access the support, expert advice, and resources you need to elevate your startup by going to: www.est.us/join     Thank you for listening, and as always, please check out the Established website and subscribe to the newsletter at: www.est.us   Checkout Startup of the Year at: www.startupofyear.com   Subscribe to the Startup of the Year Daily Deal Flow: www.startupofyear.com/daily-dealflow   Subscribe to the Startup of the Year podcast: www.podcast.startupofyear.com   Subscribe to the Established YouTube Channel: soty.link/ESTYouTube   *** Startup of the Year helps diverse, emerging startups, founding teams, and entrepreneurs push their company to the next level. We are a competition, a global community, and a resource.     Startup of the Year is also a year-long program that searches the country for a geographically diverse set of startups from all backgrounds and pulls them together to compete for the title of Startup of the Year.    The program includes a number of in-person and virtual events, including our annual South By Southwest startup pitch event and competition. All of which culminate at our annual Startup of the Year Summit, where the Startup of the Year winner is announced, along with an opportunity at a potential investment.   Established is a consultancy focused on helping organizations with innovation, startup, and communication strategies. It is the power behind Startup of the Year. Created by the talent responsible for building the Tech.Co brand (acquired by an international publishing company), we are leveraging decades of experience to help our collaborators best further (or create) their brand & accomplish their most important goals. Connect with us on Twitter - @EstablishedUs and Facebook - facebook.com/established.us  

Show notes: US Patent and Trademark Office: https://www.uspto.gov/ Director's Blog: https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/directors-blog-latest-uspto-leadership LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kathividal/ Not every seven-year-old reads case law, but Kathi Vidal, Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office, did that on library visits. But her love for science pushed her toward an engineering career. However, her passion for digging deep into subjects and learning new things eventually turned her towards the law profession, where her hands-on scientific background became an asset as an Intellectual Property lawyer. Kathi's drive to continually learn and a willingness to push the boundaries have accelerated her career. Experiencing impediments, she didn't know existed helped shape her leadership style. As you'll hear, Kathi is a committed champion of creating equity and access for all innovators, and she's using her platform to bring that to everyone. This episode discusses Kathi's engineering experience, becoming a lawyer, owning feedback, and realizing her potential. If you want to geek out on some intellectual property law talk or learn more about what it takes to be a leader in today's world, this conversation is for you.

Let's meet the halfway point in the week head-on and take a peek at today's legal news.  The US Supreme Court is deciding whether US trademark law applies to foreign conduct in a case involving a $90m infringement award over radio remote controls. The Tenth Circuit upheld a $115m award, including $90m in trademark infringement damages, to Hetronic International against Abitron Germany for infringing radio remote controls for heavy-duty construction equipment sold worldwide. While Abitron maintained that nearly all its conduct was international and therefore the Tenth Circuit had overreached, Hetronic argued the focus should be on whether actions caused consumer confusion in the US. The case has raised concerns about the reach of US trademark law into other jurisdictions, but the justices have also indicated that Congress' authority over US commerce becomes difficult to square with arguments limiting the reach of trademark law in a global, internet-connected context. IP attorney Mark Lezama of Knobbe Martens said the majority of justices appeared to be in favour of reversing the Tenth Circuit's judgment in large part and limiting the extraterritorial reach of the Lanham Act.By way of brief background, the Lanham Act, also known as the Trademark Act of 1946, is a United States federal law that governs trademarks, service marks, and unfair competition. It provides for the registration of trademarks and service marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and establishes procedures for enforcing trademark rights. The Lanham Act prohibits false advertising, false designation of origin, and other deceptive practices that may confuse consumers about the source or quality of goods or services. It also provides for remedies such as injunctions, damages, and attorney's fees in cases of trademark infringement. The Lanham Act has been amended several times over the years to keep pace with changes in technology and commerce, but it remains an important tool for protecting intellectual property rights in the United States and, maybe now, worldwide. Justices Weigh Trademark Law's Reach Against Global Commerce (1) Texas and Idaho will operate under a federal waters rule that was in place before March 20, after a federal court barred the Biden administration's 2023 waters of the US (WOTUS) rule from being implemented in those states. The new rule is designed to protect water quality in major waterways across the US, and impacts housing, agricultural, mining and other development projects in every state, as a permit is required to disturb federally protected waters and wetlands. The definition of federally protected waters under the Clean Water Act has been subject to a complex series of challenges and revisions, including a 2008-15 rule, the Obama administration's expansion of federally protected waters and wetlands, a subsequent court decision rejecting that rule, and the Trump administration's changes to WOTUS. The Biden administration is facing five lawsuits challenging its 2023 rule, brought by at least 26 states and industry groups. Although the injunction against the rule in Texas and Idaho is not expected to affect the other lawsuits, a Supreme Court case, Sackett v. EPA, could undermine the significant nexus test that is currently used to determine whether waters and wetlands are protected under the law, potentially prompting further litigation.‘Bizarre' Texas Injunction Means Past US Waters Rule in Effect Manhattan prosecutors are expected to decide within days whether to bring charges against former President Donald Trump for his role in hush-money payments made by his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to Stormy Daniels in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election. Trump denies having had an affair with Daniels. The inquiry into the payments opened and closed several times, leading to the case being referred to as a "zombie case". Doubts had arisen as to whether state felony charges could be brought against a candidate for federal office, and whether the conduct could be considered money laundering. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg launched the probe after his predecessor Cyrus Vance twice looked into the payment and did not bring charges. The new prosecutor is reportedly approaching the case with a different legal theory. Trump, who is seeking the Republican nomination for the presidency again in 2024, has called the probe a "witch hunt" – which is probably accurate … if there really was a witch and it really had paid off an adult film actress. Trump hush-money charges would bring 'zombie case' back to lifeContent warning here for a hateful law enacted by a hateful person, with my condolences to all the good people in Arkansas that aren't currently governor. If you want to hop off here and catch up with us tomorrow, this is our last story of the day. Have a great one.On Tuesday, Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed a law that prohibits transgender individuals from using public school restrooms that match their gender identity. The law applies to multi-person restrooms and locker rooms in public schools and charter schools serving pre-K through grade 12. The law requires schools to provide reasonable accommodations, such as single-person restrooms and changing areas, and school authorities that violate the law can face fines of at least $1,000, while parents can file lawsuits to enforce the measure. A spokesperson for Sanders said that the governor is focusing on protecting and educating children, not “indoctrinating” them – and indoctrinating should be viewed with huge sarcastic air quotes. This law is similar to ones in Alabama and Oklahoma that are aimed at making life miserable for transgender youth, while Republican legislators across the United States have been campaigning to ban healthcare for them. Some are even seeking to charge parents and doctors with child abuse if they provide treatment, all are aiding and abetting their most extreme colleagues by putting party loyalty ahead of basic human decency. Arkansas enacts law restricting school bathroom use by transgender people  Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Kathi Vidal returns to the Clause 8 podcast to talk about her first year as the Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).  In an expansive conversation, Director Vidal talks about what she hopes to accomplish, explains and defends the current process for exploring and making changes to the patent system, and responds to criticisms regarding the state of the system.  Even close observers of her time as Director are bound to be surprised by many comments she offers on this episode. On this episode, Director Vidal and Eli discuss: Offer to become Director & preparation for role Big-picture vision & importance of listening to all stakeholders How stakeholder input drove administration's decision regarding standard essential patent (SEP) policy statements Healthy state of America's patent system & need for improvements on the margins Negative impact of information that discourages use of patent system Reliance of American companies on other jurisdictions to enforce their patent rights Efforts to increase diversity of patent applicants, including efforts to expand pro bono programs Weighing stability of patent system v. implementing change USPTO's willingness to pivot, pause, and extend Are requests for comments (RFCs) destabilizing patent system? Correct way to view USPTO's RFCs – why you shouldn't read too much into individual questions Proposal to record examiner interviews Coordination with USPTO labor unions Indispensable role America's patent system played in creation of the COVID-19 vaccines How lack of patent eligibility for diagnostic tests impeded innovation for COVID-19 tests Efforts of drug companies to make sure that those who needed COVID 19 vaccines got them Message to independent inventors (who hear Molly Metz's story) Upcoming plan to solve for problems faced by independent inventors “Patent troll” narrative – are there too many “bad patents”? Reputation of the PTAB & desire of PTAB judges to get it right Has the PTAB worked out as intended? Purpose of new guidance & rulemaking regarding Fintiv discretionary denials Approach to Director review & importance of independence of PTAB judges Plan to solicit input regarding role of 3rd parties in PTAB proceedings Need for more clarity regarding Section 101 Providing examiners with ability to do pattern recognition for Section 101 analysis Selection of Commissioner for Patents Vaishali Udupa Surprising alignment with America's allies on innovation & IP issues Advice on overcoming career setbacks   

On today's episode of the podcast, I'm sharing a very exciting announcement and also spilling the tea on my recent trademark debacle and what to do if you find yourself on either side of an intellectual property situation. Two weeks from today I'm re-opening my law firm

Blaine Hackman focuses his Wolf Greenfield practice on post-grant proceedings before the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and related patent litigation, prosecution, and counseling. He regularly represents clients in inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), with an emphasis on biotechnology and pharmaceutical technologies. In this episode of IP Talk with Wolf Greenfield, Blaine offers an overview of the firm's post-grant practice. Here are some of the highlights: 00:49 - An overview of Wolf Greenfield's post-grant practice. 03:12 - The difference between a jury trial and post-grant proceeding. 05:57 - For biotech and pharma companies, choosing the right path is a crucial choice.  07:51 - Changes for companies looking to claim newly discovered life science technologies or improvements to existing technologies. 08:55 - How to evaluate the likelihood of success prior to either a PTAB proceeding or jury trial. 11:04 - Recent changes to post-grant proceedings. 14:40 - The importance of expert testimony in PTAB proceedings and jury trials.16:32 - Life sciences companies often miss opportunities by overlooking the PTAB. 18:50 - Implications for future legal proceedings after going the post-grant route. 20:10 - Wolf Greenfield's expanding post-grant practice in 2023.

In this episode, Valencia Martin Wallace and I do a critical examination of our innovation ecosystem and how we can make it more diverse and inclusive. Valencia is the Deputy Commissioner for Patents for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and is the executive lead for the USPTO's Council for Inclusive Innovation (CI2). Valencia shares data regarding how women and minorities are underrepresented in the innovation ecosystem. You can feel her passion for the topic and for strengthening the innovation and IP community as a whole. In this episode, Jeff Harty and Valencia Martin Wallace discuss: Valencia's passion for growth and support in the IP community. The creation of CI2 and why it is necessary.The benefits of having a more diverse innovation ecosystem. Strategies and initiatives to build a more diverse and inclusive innovation ecosystem by encouraging participation demographically, geographically, and economically.Key Takeaways: While 30 percent of engineers and scientists who are working professionally are women, less than 12 percent have their names on patents.The story does not end when an invention is patented—it takes a community to take the patented invention further into commercialization and usage. By closing the gender gap, $12–$28 trillion can be added to the global economy. Innovators are not created; they are born. It is a matter of helping those innovators get a rich education and giving them opportunities to help not only themselves, but also the nation. “It takes a community to move forward in every field but especially when integrating technology and law.” — Valencia Martin Wallace   About Valencia Martin Wallace: As deputy commissioner for patents, Valencia manages and leads the USPTO's efforts related to international IP harmonization and provides executive oversight over patent-examining functions in the technologies of communication, mechanical engineering, manufacturing, and medical devices and processes. She provides executive leadership on international patent legal issues and various work-sharing efforts with international partners. Valencia is the executive lead for the USPTO's Council for Inclusive Innovation (CI2). The CI2 will help guide the USPTO in developing a comprehensive national strategy to build a more diverse and inclusive innovation ecosystem.As deputy commissioner for patent quality, Valencia was responsible for sustaining the quality of the patent examination processes and products. In her 28-year career at the USPTO, she also oversaw software technology centers, served as executive co-lead on the implementation of the AIA First-Inventor-to-File statutory framework, and led the implementation of the Office of Patent Examination Support Services.Valencia earned a bachelor of science in electrical engineering from Howard University and a juris doctorate from The George Washington University School of Law. She also has a certificate in Advanced Public Administration from Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Administration.Connect with Valencia Martin Wallace: USPTO: https://www.uspto.govLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/valencia-wallace-738502122/ Other References: USPTO Inclusive Innovation: https://www.uspto.gov/initiatives/equity Council for Inclusive Innovation: https://www.uspto.gov/initiatives/equity/ci2 Black Innovation and Entrepreneurship Program: https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/events/black-innovation-and-entrepreneurshipPatent Pro Bono Program: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/using-legal-services/pro-bono/patent-pro-bono-program?MURL=probonopatentsConnect with Jeff Harty: Website: https://nyemaster.com/attorney-directory/jeffrey-d-harty/Email: jharty@nyemaster.comLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-harty-5a9a1643/

Jeff Miller - Top 15 Private Wealth Advisors at Northwestern Mutual     Make a yearend financial checklist and review what you did in 2022, determine how you did in relation to your early year expectations and then get a positive start to 2023. Jeff Miller is one of the Top 15 Private Wealth Advisors at Northwestern Mutual every year since 2007 out of 6,400+ advisors. Jeff built his reputation through holistic financial planning and investment management. His process has been incorporated throughout Miller Financial Services as he seeks to first understand the uniqueness of each client's situation, followed by a thorough analysis, organization, and execution with regular monitoring of each individualized plan and portfolio. As 2022 is coming to an end, it's not too late to make sure your finances are in check ahead of the new year. Especially as the season of giving has arrived, a year-end financial checklist can help you achieve whatever goals you've set for yourself that you have not yet fulfilled. If you are struggling to get your spending plan to where you desire, a Northwestern Mutual financial expert can give tangible tips and tricks to help you stay motivated through the rest of the year as well as what to investigate when starting your year-end financial checklist. Tony Restell - Founder of Social-Hire        Try and get out in the market and sell whatever your product as quickly as you possibly can! Tony Restell is the Founder of Social-Hire, a leading UK social media marketing agency that helps businesses turn social media into a consistent source of leads and sales within 90 days. They have helped thousands of clients grow their businesses using social media at less than a 1/3 of the cost they would pay to hire an in-house social media manager. Before starting Social-Hire, Tony built and sold Top-Consultant, a successful job board business that served clients like Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Coca-Cola, to the Daily Mail Group. He is also a guest speaker at dozens of leading business schools across Europe on how MBA students and alumni can leverage social media to further their careers or launch thriving businesses. Kathi Vidal - Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office  and Paul DelPonte - Head the National Crime Prevention Council Worldwide, the impact of counterfeit goods is about $1 trillion. And Los Angeles city alone it cost $483 million in lost taxes and 100,000 lost jobs.  [caption id="attachment_49990" align="alignright" width="150"] Kathi Vidal[/caption] The holiday hustle and bustle are in full swing as shoppers search for this year's best steals and deals. The good news, discounts are expected to hit record highs for popular categories such as electronics, computers, and toys according to Adobe's online-shopping forecast. However, scammers are looking to take advantage of American consumers as fears of a looming recession increase, and people tighten their purse strings leading up to the Holidays. These criminals are on the prowl both online and off looking to entice consumers with even lower-cost price tags attached to dangerous counterfeit products. This is especially true online as sales are expected to grow by 2.5% throughout December. The rise of e-commerce has led to an increase in sales and purchases of duped products. McGruff the Crime Dog®, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) are alerting people to these scams and educating them on how to spot the red flags this holiday season. Kathi Vidal is Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. She leads one of the largest intellectual property (IP) offices in the world, with more than 13,000 employees and an annual budget of more than $4 billion. She is the principal IP advisor to the President and the Administration, through the Secretary of Commerce, and is focused on incentivizing and protecting U.S. innovation, entrepreneurship, and creativity. Paul DelPonte is an accomplished nonprofit leader, award-winning consumer advocate, and pioneering communicator. Paul was appointed to head the National Crime Prevention Council in 2021. The nonprofit National Crime Prevention Council is home to McGruff the Crime Dog® and has helped generations of Americans Take A Bite Out Of Crime® through public education campaigns and advocating for public policies to make the U.S. safer. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is the federal agency for granting U.S. patents and registering trademarks. For more information, visit www.ncpc.org/goforreal and www.uspto.gov.

In this conversation, Jeff Harty speaks with Damian Porcari, regional director of the Elijah J. McCoy Midwest Regional United States Patent and Trademark Office. Damian explains how the regional offices work and tells us about the many resources available to aspiring inventors and business owners. In this episode, Jeff Harty and Damian Porcari discuss: Damian's background in chemistry and his professional career, both of which helped form his views on intellectual property. Measuring impact qualitatively. Virtual hiring, training, and practice with the regional USPTO. USPTO resources for aspiring inventors and business owners. Key Takeaways: Working at the USPTO has allowed Damian to work with smaller businesses that succeed and can compete with international conglomerates. Counting things for the sake of counting things is not a true reflection of the impact of anything. Attorneys and judges are assigned to cases based on their own technical backgrounds, even if they are in different regions. Integrate the IP needs assessment into your business plan. Reassess it every year; your needs will grow and change as your business grows and changes. “The people that utilize the needs assessment, that actually go and answer all 60 questions thoughtfully, and then bring it to their advisers, whether they're lawyers or investors or partners, can essentially integrate those questions into their business plans.” —Damian Porcari   About Damian Porcari: Damian Porcari has been the regional director of the Elijah J. McCoy Midwest Regional United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) since September 2018. From 1989 to 2017, Damian worked for Ford Global Technologies LLC (FGTL) in Dearborn, Michigan, serving as its director of licensing and enforcement from 2005 to 2017. Damian is a named inventor on six U.S. patents and created one of the largest IP software companies in the world. He received a bachelor of science in chemistry from Michigan State University and a juris doctor from the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law. Episode References: USPTO Awareness Assessment: https://ipassessment.uspto.gov/ USPTO Startup Resources: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/startup-resources USPTO Events: https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/events Connect with Damian Porcari: Regional DirectorUSPTO - Elijah J. McCoy Midwest Regional Office300 River Place Drive | Suite 2900 | Detroit | Michigan | 48027 Website: https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/uspto-locations/detroit-michigan Email: midwestregion@uspto.gov Email: dporcari@uspto.gov Phone: 313-446-4800 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/damian-porcari-218b0475/ Connect with Jeff Harty: Website: https://nyemaster.com/attorney-directory/jeffrey-d-harty/Email: jharty@nyemaster.comLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-harty-5a9a1643/

This is a special episode featuring Mr. Andrei Iancu, the former director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). We begin our discussion with a background and interesting details about the USPTO, the launch of the Council For Innovation Promotion and the value of patents. Then we discuss the recent controversial anti-patent remarks made by Elon Musk and the landmark Supreme Court case bearing my guest's name, Iancu v. Brunetti, which was decided during Mr. Iancu's time at the USPTO. Enjoy and thank you for listening! Episode Notes: 1. Council for Innovation Promotion: www.C4IP.org 2. Iancu v. Brunetti, 139 S. Ct. 2294 (2019) The Fashion Law Network podcast and statements made are for entertainment purposes only and are not legal advice. If you would like legal advice or a legal consultation you may contact me directly at kasia@caldwellip.com.

Our featured guest is one of the most respected and influential voices in intellectual property, particularly as it relates to innovation and patent policy. David Kappos has had a distinguished career steeped in leadership roles and IP. In this episode, he talks about how IP inspires him, the intersection of IP and government, the importance of maintaining strong IP systems in the United States, and the complicated topic of patent-eligible subject matter. In this episode, Jeff Harty and David Kappos discuss: How IP continues to motivate and inspire David in his career. How a strong patent system drives important investments in new technologies. Threats to intellectual property in the United States. Patent-eligible subject matter. Key Takeaways: IP is a key to solving all of the world's most daunting problems. Consumers must be prepared to pay higher prices in the short term for new and innovative products protected by patents. However, it's a long-term game, not about what is happening now.The Council for Innovation Promotion is helping to provide transparency and visibility into what those in Washington, D.C., are doing for and against intellectual property and the patent system. The law of subject matter eligibility for patents is confusing and unclear. Innovation tends to lag in the technology areas most affected, hurting U.S. companies and innovators. "If we, the U.S., want to continue to lead the world in opportunity, and if we, the world, want to improve our condition for humans and the planet more generally, we have to have a strong and effective IP system." —David Kappos   About David Kappos: David J. Kappos is widely recognized as one of the world's foremost leaders in the field of intellectual property, including intellectual property management and strategy, the development of global intellectual property norms, laws, and practices, as well as the commercialization and enforcement of innovation‑based assets. A partner at Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, David handles complex intellectual property issues, including those pertaining to the blockchain, crypto assets, and fintech, as well as data security and privacy. From August 2009 to January 2013, he served as Under Secretary of Commerce and director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Among his numerous awards, David was named one of the Top 25 Icons of IP by Law360, Outstanding Practitioner of the Year in IPTransactions by Managing IP, one of the 100 Most Influential Lawyers in America by The National Law Journal, and was inducted into the Intellectual Property Hall of Fame byIntellectual Asset Management Magazine in 2012. Connect with David Kappos: Website: https://www.cravath.com/people/david-j-kappos.html LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/david-kappos-57166113/ Council for Innovation Promotion Website: https://c4ip.org/ Council for Innovation Promotion Twitter: https://twitter.com/Council4IP Connect with Jeff Harty: Website: https://nyemaster.com/attorney-directory/jeffrey-d-harty/Email: jharty@nyemaster.comLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-harty-5a9a1643/

Interested in learning about some of the initiatives that the US Patent and Trade Office is focused on? Well, you need to tune into this conversation with Kathi Vidal, the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, also known as USPTO. As the Chief Executive of the USPTO, she leads one of the largest intellectual property offices in the world, with more than 13,000 employees and an annual budget of more than $4 billion! She is the principal IP advisor to President Biden and the Administration through the Secretary of Commerce and is focused on incentivizing and protecting U.S. innovation, entrepreneurship, and creativity. I am excited for you to hear more about the Office's focus on Inclusive Innovation, CI2, and WE, which is launching today. This is a must-listen that I know you will enjoy. Today on #TheKaraGoldinShow. Enjoying this episode of #TheKaraGoldinShow? Let me know by clicking on the links below and sending me a quick shout-out on social. Or reach out to me at karagoldin@gmail.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/karagoldin/ https://www.instagram.com/karagoldin/ https://twitter.com/karagoldin https://www.facebook.com/KaraGoldin/ Check out our website to view this episode's show notes: https://karagoldin.com/podcast/317 To learn more about WE, USPTO and Kathi Vidal: Women's Entrepreneurship (WE) Initiative Summary https://www.linkedin.com/in/kathividal/ https://www.facebook.com/KathiKVidal https://www.linkedin.com/company/uspto/mycompany/verification/ https://twitter.com/uspto https://www.facebook.com/uspto.gov

From self-driving cars to voice automation in homes, inventors are developing ambitious AI technologies that will continue to impact the ways in which we learn, work, communicate, and travel. According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the number of AI-related patents increased at an astonishing number, from 4,598 in 2008 to 20,639 in 2018. In this episode of Mind the Gap, Rama Elluru, a former Administrative Patent Judge on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the USPTO, and Christian Hannon, a patent attorney in the USPTO's Office of Policy and International Affairs, share their perspectives on how AI is impacting patent law and the inventor community.

As a product creator, how do you prevent confusion with other similarly-named products in the market? Josh is an intellectual property attorney specializing in trademark law. He joins Mark and Adam to discuss why trademarks exist to protect consumers, not businesses; the legal differences between ™️, ®, wordmark, and logomark; patent trolling and trademark bullying; and the APIs used to monitor trademark databases. Plus: the trademarks of Apple, Monster Energy, and LeBron James. @MuseAppHQ hello@museapp.com Show notes Josh Gerben (@JoshGerben) Gerben Intellectual Property TESS (Trademark Electronic Search System, or TESS) origin of the name “Google” Lanham Act retainer Metamuse episode on Brand US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) common law right Dove soap, Dove chocolate case law vs statute expert testimonial mutually assured destruction word mark vs logo mark trademark watch service trademark bullying Gerben Trademark Library