#uspto-procedural-requirements

#uspto-procedural-requirements

Renée's leadership extends well beyond operations. While I focus on external-facing initiatives such as content, programs, and strategic vision, she oversees the core business functions of the company, including finance and HR, and is instrumental in driving our growth.

"That is not a thing the Patent Office is going to do, is try to say: 'This patent is worth X.' How in the world could we do that? How in the world could anyone reasonably do that?'" - Howard Lutnick During a Subcommittee hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee today, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick confirmed to Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) that he does not plan to implement his proposal to charge patent holders a percentage their patents' value.

Regents of the University of California ("Regents") and Broad Institute were engaged in a patent interference proceeding involving the adaptation of CRISPR systems to edit eukaryotic DNA. Both parties were engaged in extensive testing related to editing eukaryotic DNA during the time of the invention, and both filed multiple patent applications that became the subjects of the patent interference proceedings.

Harrity & Harrity is looking for experienced patent attorneys and agents who want a smarter way to practice law. Our practice is built around streamlined workflows, custom AI and automation tools, and a data-driven approach that keeps the focus where it belongs: on quality, strategy, and client service-not busywork or billable-hour math. You'll work on high-value patent portfolios for top-tier technology companies while enjoying true flexibility, strong support, and meaningful autonomy.

Johnson and I discuss obviousness determinations built on excessive combinations of prior art, warning that such analyses blur the line between legitimate hindsight reconstruction and genuine innovation assessment. We also highlight a systemic blind spot: nuisance "ankle-biter" assertions that exploit litigation economics while largely evading PTAB scrutiny. These cases have driven much of the political backlash against patents while remaining functionally untouched by the post-grant review process.

The case centers on the "Martin" reference, a patent application covering LED technology that was filed on April 16, 2003 and published on October 21, 2004. Martin was later abandoned and never became a patent. Lynk Labs' '400 patent claims a priority date of February 25, 2004, placing it squarely in the gap between Martin's filing and publication dates. Samsung successfully used Martin to challenge claims of the '400 patent as obvious in IPR.

The Office de-designated Proppant Express Invests., LLC v. Oren Techs., LLC, IPR2017-01917, Paper 86 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2019); and Adello Biologics LLC v. Amgen Inc., PGR2019-00001, Paper 11 (PTAB Feb. 14, 2019). According to a USPTO email sent Tuesday, both decisions conflict with the decision in Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband Inc., IPR2014-00440, Paper 68 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2015) (precedential).