Congratulations!

[Valid RSS] This is a valid RSS feed.

Recommendations

This feed is valid, but interoperability with the widest range of feed readers could be improved by implementing the following recommendations.

Source: http://feeds.feedburner.com/Ipwatchdog

  1. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
  2. xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
  3. xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
  4. xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
  5. xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
  6. xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
  7. xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
  8. >
  9.  
  10. <channel>
  11. <title>IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</title>
  12. <atom:link href="https://ipwatchdog.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
  13. <link>https://ipwatchdog.com</link>
  14. <description>Trusted on intellectual property law. News and commentary on patents, innovation policy, trade secrets, copyrights and trademarks.</description>
  15. <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 May 2025 20:31:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
  16. <language>en-US</language>
  17. <sy:updatePeriod>
  18. hourly </sy:updatePeriod>
  19. <sy:updateFrequency>
  20. 1 </sy:updateFrequency>
  21. <generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.2</generator>
  22. <item>
  23. <title>Other Barks &#038; Bites for Friday, May 9: USPTO Responds to GAO Report; Stewart Welcomes National Inventors Hall of Fame Inductees; CAFC Defines ‘Ground’ for IPR Estoppel Statute</title>
  24. <link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/09/bites-barks-uspto-gao-report-stewart-welcomes-national-inventors-hall-fame-inductees/id=188776/</link>
  25. <comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/09/bites-barks-uspto-gao-report-stewart-welcomes-national-inventors-hall-fame-inductees/id=188776/#respond</comments>
  27. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Steve Brachmann]]></dc:creator>
  28. <pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2025 18:15:57 +0000</pubDate>
  29. <category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
  30. <category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
  31. <category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
  32. <category><![CDATA[Other Barks and Bites]]></category>
  33. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=188776</guid>
  34.  
  35. <description><![CDATA[This week in Other Barks &#038; Bites: the Federal Circuit issues several precedential decisions, including one ruling defining the “ground” that a patent validity challenger could have reasonably raised in IPR proceedings for purposes of the IPR estoppel statute; Nvidia announces that it will release a downgraded version of its H20 AI chip for the Chinese market; the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office notes that its challenges in balancing time, cost and quality in the patent examination context are “well-documented” following the GAO’s report on examination quality; and more. ]]></description>
  37. <wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/09/bites-barks-uspto-gao-report-stewart-welcomes-national-inventors-hall-fame-inductees/id=188776/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  38. <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
  41. </item>
  42. <item>
  43. <title>PTAB Designates as Informative Stewart Decision on Discretion to Institute in Context of Parallel District Court Litigation</title>
  44. <link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/08/ptab-designates-informative-decision-discretion-institute-context-parallel-district-court-litigation/id=188747/</link>
  45. <comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/08/ptab-designates-informative-decision-discretion-institute-context-parallel-district-court-litigation/id=188747/#respond</comments>
  47. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Eileen McDermott]]></dc:creator>
  48. <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2025 18:15:39 +0000</pubDate>
  49. <category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
  50. <category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
  51. <category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
  52. <category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
  53. <category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
  54. <category><![CDATA[Director review]]></category>
  55. <category><![CDATA[discretionary denial]]></category>
  56. <category><![CDATA[Fintiv]]></category>
  57. <category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
  58. <category><![CDATA[inter partes review]]></category>
  59. <category><![CDATA[IPR]]></category>
  60. <category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
  61. <category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
  62. <category><![CDATA[Patent Trial and Appeal Board]]></category>
  63. <category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
  64. <category><![CDATA[PTAB]]></category>
  65. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=188747</guid>
  66.  
  67. <description><![CDATA[The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), on Wednesday, May 7, designated a recent Director Review decision issued by Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Coke Morgan Stewart, as informative. The decision clarified that a district court’s final judgment of invalidity favors denial of inter partes review (IPR) under the Fintiv framework.]]></description>
  69. <wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/08/ptab-designates-informative-decision-discretion-institute-context-parallel-district-court-litigation/id=188747/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  70. <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
  73. </item>
  74. <item>
  75. <title>GAO Says USPTO Falls Short on Oversight, Patent Quality Efforts</title>
  76. <link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/08/gao-says-uspto-falls-short-oversight-patent-quality-efforts/id=188731/</link>
  77. <comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/08/gao-says-uspto-falls-short-oversight-patent-quality-efforts/id=188731/#comments</comments>
  79. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Tanner Shae]]></dc:creator>
  80. <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2025 16:15:16 +0000</pubDate>
  81. <category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
  82. <category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
  83. <category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
  84. <category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
  85. <category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
  86. <category><![CDATA[gao]]></category>
  87. <category><![CDATA[government accountability office]]></category>
  88. <category><![CDATA[innovation]]></category>
  89. <category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
  90. <category><![CDATA[oversight]]></category>
  91. <category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
  92. <category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
  93. <category><![CDATA[patent quality]]></category>
  94. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=188731</guid>
  95.  
  96. <description><![CDATA[The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued a sharply critical report concluding that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has failed to effectively assess and manage its initiatives aimed at improving patent quality. The April 2025 report—prepared in response to a request from the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Intellectual Property—found that the agency's efforts to improve patent examination are hampered by poor planning, inadequate oversight and misaligned performance metrics.]]></description>
  98. <wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/08/gao-says-uspto-falls-short-oversight-patent-quality-efforts/id=188731/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  99. <slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
  102. </item>
  103. <item>
  104. <title>GIPC Applauds New USTR Approach to Special 301 List</title>
  105. <link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/08/gipc-applauds-new-ustr-approach-special-301-list/id=188765/</link>
  106. <comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/08/gipc-applauds-new-ustr-approach-special-301-list/id=188765/#respond</comments>
  108. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Eileen McDermott]]></dc:creator>
  109. <pubDate>Thu, 08 May 2025 14:15:14 +0000</pubDate>
  110. <category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
  111. <category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
  112. <category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
  113. <category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
  114. <category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
  115. <category><![CDATA[Trademark]]></category>
  116. <category><![CDATA[GIPC]]></category>
  117. <category><![CDATA[Priority Watch List]]></category>
  118. <category><![CDATA[Special 301 Report]]></category>
  119. <category><![CDATA[TRIPS Waiver]]></category>
  120. <category><![CDATA[U.S. Chamber of Commerce]]></category>
  121. <category><![CDATA[ustr]]></category>
  122. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=188765</guid>
  123.  
  124. <description><![CDATA[The Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC) of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce published a blog post today calling the U.S. Trade Representative’s (USTR’s) latest Special 301 Report “particularly significant” due to the Trump Administration’s reinsertion and addition of several priorities championed by the business community.]]></description>
  126. <wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/08/gipc-applauds-new-ustr-approach-special-301-list/id=188765/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  127. <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
  130. </item>
  131. <item>
  132. <title>Judge Hughes Again Calls Out CAFC’s Overly Rigid Article III Analysis for Pharmaceutical Cases</title>
  133. <link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/07/judge-hughes-calls-cafcs-overly-rigid-article-iii-analysis-pharmaceutical-cases/id=188728/</link>
  134. <comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/07/judge-hughes-calls-cafcs-overly-rigid-article-iii-analysis-pharmaceutical-cases/id=188728/#comments</comments>
  136. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Steve Brachmann]]></dc:creator>
  137. <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2025 21:24:19 +0000</pubDate>
  138. <category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
  139. <category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
  140. <category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
  141. <category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
  142. <category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
  143. <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
  144. <category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
  145. <category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
  146. <category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>
  147. <category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
  148. <category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
  149. <category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
  150. <category><![CDATA[Patent Trial and Appeal Board]]></category>
  151. <category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
  152. <category><![CDATA[post grant procedures]]></category>
  153. <category><![CDATA[post grant review]]></category>
  154. <category><![CDATA[PTAB]]></category>
  155. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=188728</guid>
  156.  
  157. <description><![CDATA[Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision in Incyte Corp. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. dismissing Incyte’s appeal from post-grant review (PGR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for lack of Article III standing. While the Federal Circuit majority deciding the case found that Incyte couldn’t establish a sufficient injury in fact, Circuit Judge Todd Hughes authored a concurrence echoing his previous concerns regarding the appellate court’s overly rigid and narrow standard for analyzing standing in PTAB appeals.]]></description>
  159. <wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/07/judge-hughes-calls-cafcs-overly-rigid-article-iii-analysis-pharmaceutical-cases/id=188728/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  160. <slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
  163. </item>
  164. <item>
  165. <title>&#8216;The Force&#8217; Abandons Applicant for US SPACE FORCE Trademark at CAFC</title>
  166. <link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/07/force-abandons-applicant-us-space-force-trademark-cafc/id=188719/</link>
  167. <comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/07/force-abandons-applicant-us-space-force-trademark-cafc/id=188719/#respond</comments>
  169. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Eileen McDermott]]></dc:creator>
  170. <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2025 17:15:48 +0000</pubDate>
  171. <category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
  172. <category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
  173. <category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
  174. <category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
  175. <category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
  176. <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
  177. <category><![CDATA[Trademark]]></category>
  178. <category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
  179. <category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>
  180. <category><![CDATA[false suggestion of connection]]></category>
  181. <category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
  182. <category><![CDATA[trademark]]></category>
  183. <category><![CDATA[Trademark Trial and Appeal Board]]></category>
  184. <category><![CDATA[trademarks]]></category>
  185. <category><![CDATA[ttab]]></category>
  186. <category><![CDATA[US SPACE FORCE]]></category>
  187. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=188719</guid>
  188.  
  189. <description><![CDATA[The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday affirmed a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decision upholding an examiner’s refusal to register the mark US SPACE FORCE to Thomas Foster. The CAFC, in an opinion authored by Chief Judge Moore, agreed with the TTAB that the mark created a false suggestion of a connection with the United States government based on President Donald Trump’s creation of the Space Force as a sixth military branch, which was established by congress in December of 2019.]]></description>
  191. <wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/07/force-abandons-applicant-us-space-force-trademark-cafc/id=188719/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  192. <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
  195. </item>
  196. <item>
  197. <title>IPWensdays &#8211; No Conflict: Distinguishing Between USPTO Eligibility Examples 39 and 47 to Your Advantage</title>
  198. <link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/07/ipwensdays-no-conflict-distinguishing-uspto-eligibility-examples/id=188710/</link>
  199. <comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/07/ipwensdays-no-conflict-distinguishing-uspto-eligibility-examples/id=188710/#comments</comments>
  201. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Wen Xie]]></dc:creator>
  202. <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2025 15:15:10 +0000</pubDate>
  203. <category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
  204. <category><![CDATA[Guest Contributors]]></category>
  205. <category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
  206. <category><![CDATA[IPWENSDAYS]]></category>
  207. <category><![CDATA[Podcasts]]></category>
  208. <category><![CDATA[Technology & Innovation]]></category>
  209. <category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
  210. <category><![CDATA[AI]]></category>
  211. <category><![CDATA[Guest Contributor]]></category>
  212. <category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
  213. <category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
  214. <category><![CDATA[patent eligibility]]></category>
  215. <category><![CDATA[patent eligible]]></category>
  216. <category><![CDATA[podcasts]]></category>
  217. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=188710</guid>
  218.  
  219. <description><![CDATA[This is a companion episode and article to Episode 1 which touched on whether there is potential friction between the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) AI subject matter eligibility guidance and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“2019 PEG”). Practitioners have noted that Example 39 of the 2019 PEG is seemingly less effective in overcoming Section 101 rejections following the issuance of the AI Guidance, particularly in light of Example 47, which dealt with training limitations, while Example 39 was a training claim. I’m here to say that there is no conflict between the examples and the two guidance documents overall and to explain why you should come to this conclusion too. ]]></description>
  221. <wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/07/ipwensdays-no-conflict-distinguishing-uspto-eligibility-examples/id=188710/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  222. <slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
  225. </item>
  226. <item>
  227. <title>NexSteps Challenges CAFC’s Rigid Requirements in Doctrine of Equivalents Infringement Cases</title>
  228. <link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/07/nexsteps-challenges-cafcs-rigid-requirements-doctrine-equivalents-infringement-cases/id=188705/</link>
  229. <comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/07/nexsteps-challenges-cafcs-rigid-requirements-doctrine-equivalents-infringement-cases/id=188705/#respond</comments>
  231. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Steve Brachmann]]></dc:creator>
  232. <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2025 13:05:28 +0000</pubDate>
  233. <category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
  234. <category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
  235. <category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
  236. <category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
  237. <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
  238. <category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
  239. <category><![CDATA[US Supreme Court]]></category>
  240. <category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>
  241. <category><![CDATA[doctrine of equivalents]]></category>
  242. <category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
  243. <category><![CDATA[patent infringement]]></category>
  244. <category><![CDATA[Patent Litigation]]></category>
  245. <category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
  246. <category><![CDATA[petition for writ of certiorari]]></category>
  247. <category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>
  248. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=188705</guid>
  249.  
  250. <description><![CDATA[Patent owner NexSteps filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court that was docketed this week challenging lower rulings overturning a jury verdict over a lack of evidentiary basis for the jury’s infringement finding under the doctrine of equivalents (DOE). NexSteps, a developer of technologies that improve consumer interactions with electronic devices, challenges these rulings as creating rigid requirements to proving DOE infringement claims that undermines the flexible, case-specific inquiry called for by Supreme Court precedent on the doctrine.]]></description>
  252. <wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/07/nexsteps-challenges-cafcs-rigid-requirements-doctrine-equivalents-infringement-cases/id=188705/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  253. <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
  256. </item>
  257. <item>
  258. <title>Federal Circuit Reverses Injunction Against Avadel Due to Hatch-Waxman Safe Harbor</title>
  259. <link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/07/federal-circuit-reverses-injunction-avadel-due-hatch-waxman-safe-harbor/id=188725/</link>
  260. <comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/07/federal-circuit-reverses-injunction-avadel-due-hatch-waxman-safe-harbor/id=188725/#respond</comments>
  262. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Tanner Shae]]></dc:creator>
  263. <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2025 11:15:18 +0000</pubDate>
  264. <category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
  265. <category><![CDATA[District Courts]]></category>
  266. <category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
  267. <category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
  268. <category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
  269. <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
  270. <category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
  271. <category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>
  272. <category><![CDATA[hatch-waxman]]></category>
  273. <category><![CDATA[Injunctions]]></category>
  274. <category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
  275. <category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
  276. <category><![CDATA[patent infringement]]></category>
  277. <category><![CDATA[Patent Litigation]]></category>
  278. <category><![CDATA[pharmaceuticals]]></category>
  279. <category><![CDATA[safe harbor]]></category>
  280. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=188725</guid>
  281.  
  282. <description><![CDATA[In a precedential decision issued May 6, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reversed in part and vacated in part a Delaware district court’s injunction that blocked Avadel CNS Pharmaceuticals from conducting clinical research and seeking regulatory approval for expanded uses of its once-nightly narcolepsy drug, Lumryz. The Federal Circuit ruled that the injunction unlawfully covered conduct protected by the Hatch-Waxman Act’s “safe harbor” provision, 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1), which exempts pre-approval research and regulatory activities from infringement liability.]]></description>
  284. <wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/07/federal-circuit-reverses-injunction-avadel-due-hatch-waxman-safe-harbor/id=188725/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  285. <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
  288. </item>
  289. <item>
  290. <title>Studebaker Brackett PLLC is Seeking a Patent Attorney/Agent</title>
  291. <link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/07/studebaker-brackett-pllc-is-seeking-a-patent-attorney-agent/id=188687/</link>
  293. <dc:creator><![CDATA[JobOrtunities Help Wanted]]></dc:creator>
  294. <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2025 09:15:41 +0000</pubDate>
  295. <category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
  296. <category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
  297. <category><![CDATA[JobOrtunities Job Board]]></category>
  298. <category><![CDATA[Studebaker Brackett PLLC]]></category>
  299. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=188687</guid>
  300.  
  301. <description><![CDATA[Studebaker Brackett PLLC (SB) is looking for a motivated, experienced, and highly skilled US patent attorney/agent to join its team on a full-time, exclusive basis. SB offers a positive, collaborative team environment; client-centered, relationship-focused approach; remote work; and a competitive salary and benefits package. This position can be performed remotely (work from home) and/or on-site in Tysons, VA.]]></description>
  305. </item>
  306. <item>
  307. <title>Coke Stewart’s Recent Show Cause Order Offers Hope for Addressing Serial Patent Challenges</title>
  308. <link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/06/coke-stewarts-recent-show-cause-order-offers-hope-addressing-serial-patent-challenges/id=188685/</link>
  309. <comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/06/coke-stewarts-recent-show-cause-order-offers-hope-addressing-serial-patent-challenges/id=188685/#comments</comments>
  311. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></dc:creator>
  312. <pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2025 21:15:35 +0000</pubDate>
  313. <category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
  314. <category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
  315. <category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
  316. <category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
  317. <category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
  318. <category><![CDATA[America Invents Act]]></category>
  319. <category><![CDATA[Coke Morgan Stewart]]></category>
  320. <category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
  321. <category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
  322. <category><![CDATA[inter partes review]]></category>
  323. <category><![CDATA[IPR]]></category>
  324. <category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
  325. <category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
  326. <category><![CDATA[Patent Trial and Appeal Board]]></category>
  327. <category><![CDATA[PTAB]]></category>
  328. <category><![CDATA[serial patent challenges]]></category>
  329. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=188685</guid>
  330.  
  331. <description><![CDATA[The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has come under fire from patent owners since virtually the beginning of its existence. Once predicted to handle between 450 to 500 challenges a year, between April 1, 2024, and March 31, 2025, the PTAB received 1,395 petitions. At this level, the number of challenges is roughly triple the number of challenges predicted at the dawn of the PTAB era. And this rate of post grant challenges has remained largely constant since FY 2019, ranging between 1,292 in FY 2024 to a high of 1,513 in FY 2020. In earlier years, it was common to have at least several hundred more challenges filed, with peak years being FY 2017 (1,901 challenges) and FY 2015 (1,897 challenges), both years which were close to quadruple the number of predicted challenges.]]></description>
  333. <wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/06/coke-stewarts-recent-show-cause-order-offers-hope-addressing-serial-patent-challenges/id=188685/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  334. <slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
  337. </item>
  338. <item>
  339. <title>Thaler Urges Full D.C. Circuit to Rehear AI-Generated Art Case</title>
  340. <link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/06/thaler-urges-full-d-c-circuit-rehear-ai-generated-art-case/id=188695/</link>
  341. <comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/06/thaler-urges-full-d-c-circuit-rehear-ai-generated-art-case/id=188695/#comments</comments>
  343. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Eileen McDermott]]></dc:creator>
  344. <pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2025 19:03:16 +0000</pubDate>
  345. <category><![CDATA[Artificial Intelligence]]></category>
  346. <category><![CDATA[Circuit Courts of Appeal]]></category>
  347. <category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
  348. <category><![CDATA[Copyright Litigation]]></category>
  349. <category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
  350. <category><![CDATA[District Courts]]></category>
  351. <category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
  352. <category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
  353. <category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
  354. <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
  355. <category><![CDATA[Technology & Innovation]]></category>
  356. <category><![CDATA[AI]]></category>
  357. <category><![CDATA[AI art]]></category>
  358. <category><![CDATA[artificial intelligence]]></category>
  359. <category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
  360. <category><![CDATA[copyrights]]></category>
  361. <category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
  362. <category><![CDATA[Stephen Thaler]]></category>
  363. <category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>
  364. <category><![CDATA[Thaler v. PErlmutter]]></category>
  365. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=188695</guid>
  366.  
  367. <description><![CDATA[Dr. Stephen Thaler, who has been fighting to have his AI machines recognized as both inventors and creators on several fronts for the last few years, has petitioned for rehearing of his case in Thaler v. Perlmutter by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which in March affirmed the denial of a copyright application filed by one of Thaler’s generative AI systems.]]></description>
  369. <wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/06/thaler-urges-full-d-c-circuit-rehear-ai-generated-art-case/id=188695/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  370. <slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
  373. </item>
  374. <item>
  375. <title>AI, Quantum and IP: Are We Ready for What’s Next? &#124; IPWatchdog Unleashed</title>
  376. <link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/06/ai-quantum-computing-ip/id=188656/</link>
  377. <comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/06/ai-quantum-computing-ip/id=188656/#comments</comments>
  379. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></dc:creator>
  380. <pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2025 14:49:07 +0000</pubDate>
  381. <category><![CDATA[Artificial Intelligence]]></category>
  382. <category><![CDATA[Interviews & Conversations]]></category>
  383. <category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
  384. <category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
  385. <category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Unleashed]]></category>
  386. <category><![CDATA[Podcasts]]></category>
  387. <category><![CDATA[AI]]></category>
  388. <category><![CDATA[artificial intelligence]]></category>
  389. <category><![CDATA[Clint Mehall]]></category>
  390. <category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
  391. <category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
  392. <category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
  393. <category><![CDATA[John Rogitz]]></category>
  394. <category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
  395. <category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
  396. <category><![CDATA[quantum computers]]></category>
  397. <category><![CDATA[quantum computing]]></category>
  398. <category><![CDATA[Stephanie Curcio]]></category>
  399. <category><![CDATA[trade secret]]></category>
  400. <category><![CDATA[Trade Secrets]]></category>
  401. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=188656</guid>
  402.  
  403. <description><![CDATA[This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we have a conversation that was recorded at the end of our AI 2025 program in front of a live studio audience.  Joining me were Stephanie Curcio, Clint Mehall, and John Rogitz, who make up the new IPWatchdog Advisory Committee. They have all been long-time attendees at our events, they often speak on panels, they often written articles for us, and now they will help advise me with respect to programs and continue to provide content for IPWatchdog.com. To jumpstart our conversation, I asked Stephanie, Clint and John if there was anything that they heard during our AI program that was surprising. This led into an interesting conversation about the possible existential threat presented by AI, quantum computing, data protection and trade secrets. ]]></description>
  405. <wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/06/ai-quantum-computing-ip/id=188656/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  406. <slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
  409. </item>
  410. <item>
  411. <title>The USPTO Should Reintroduce the AFCP Program—Now</title>
  412. <link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/05/uspto-reintroduce-afcp-program-now/id=188644/</link>
  413. <comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/05/uspto-reintroduce-afcp-program-now/id=188644/#comments</comments>
  415. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></dc:creator>
  416. <pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2025 19:15:39 +0000</pubDate>
  417. <category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
  418. <category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
  419. <category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
  420. <category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
  421. <category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
  422. <category><![CDATA[AFCP 2.0]]></category>
  423. <category><![CDATA[After Final Consideration Pilot]]></category>
  424. <category><![CDATA[Biden administration]]></category>
  425. <category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
  426. <category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
  427. <category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
  428. <category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
  429. <category><![CDATA[Trump Administration]]></category>
  430. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=188644</guid>
  431.  
  432. <description><![CDATA[In December 2024, the Biden Administration elected to end the After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0, better known as AFCP 2.0. The choice to do away with what was a popular program was confusing—to say the least. AFCP 2.0 was always touted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as being a part of the agency’s desire to promote compact prosecution. But in light of a growing backlog, with some 1.2 million applications pending, nearly 900,000 of which have never been looked at by an examiner, the decision to terminate AFCP 2.0 seems shortsighted and rather ridiculous. The Trump Administration should reinstate AFCP 2.0, with some modifications to make it even more useful.]]></description>
  434. <wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/05/uspto-reintroduce-afcp-program-now/id=188644/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  435. <slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
  438. </item>
  439. <item>
  440. <title>SCOTUS Denies Cellspin Petition Seeking Recusal Based on Federal Judge’s Financial Ties to Google</title>
  441. <link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/05/scotus-denies-cellpsin-petition-seeking-recusal-based-federal-judges-financial-ties-google/id=188664/</link>
  442. <comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/05/scotus-denies-cellpsin-petition-seeking-recusal-based-federal-judges-financial-ties-google/id=188664/#comments</comments>
  444. <dc:creator><![CDATA[Eileen McDermott]]></dc:creator>
  445. <pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2025 16:15:21 +0000</pubDate>
  446. <category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
  447. <category><![CDATA[District Courts]]></category>
  448. <category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
  449. <category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
  450. <category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
  451. <category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
  452. <category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
  453. <category><![CDATA[US Supreme Court]]></category>
  454. <category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>
  455. <category><![CDATA[Cellspin Soft]]></category>
  456. <category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
  457. <category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
  458. <category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
  459. <category><![CDATA[patent infringement]]></category>
  460. <category><![CDATA[Patent Litigation]]></category>
  461. <category><![CDATA[recusal]]></category>
  462. <category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>
  463. <guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=188664</guid>
  464.  
  465. <description><![CDATA[The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari Monday in Cellspin Soft v. Fitbit, a case arguing in part that a district judge should have been recused due to her spouse’s financial ties to Google and her own ownership of Google stock through heavily managed investment funds. The petition for writ of certiorari, filed by Bluetooth media upload developer Cellspin in April, claimed that Rogers’ impartiality could reasonably be questioned based on those financial interests, some of which were only disclosed following summary judgment.]]></description>
  467. <wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2025/05/05/scotus-denies-cellpsin-petition-seeking-recusal-based-federal-judges-financial-ties-google/id=188664/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
  468. <slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
  471. </item>
  472. </channel>
  473. </rss>
  474.  

If you would like to create a banner that links to this page (i.e. this validation result), do the following:

  1. Download the "valid RSS" banner.

  2. Upload the image to your own server. (This step is important. Please do not link directly to the image on this server.)

  3. Add this HTML to your page (change the image src attribute if necessary):

If you would like to create a text link instead, here is the URL you can use:

http://www.feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A//feeds.feedburner.com/Ipwatchdog

Home · About · News · Docs · Terms

 
Copyright © 2002-9 Sam Ruby, Mark Pilgrim, Joseph Walton, and Phil Ringnalda