Intellectual Property

Why File a Patent Application and What Happens Next

The process of getting a patent is not fast unless you qualify for expedited processing, which is not easy.

It normally takes several years to go from submission of the application to approval and issuance of the patent. That can be frustrating. 

Some good things happen right away when you apply, however:

  • you can put “patent pending” on the invention, which investors like to see,
  • your application is in the USPTO database of patent applications, meaning it should block any later-filed applications that would infringe on your rights from being approved, 


Continue Reading The Patent Process

Do you feel like the subject of AI has entered almost every conversation?

This month’s issue of the Ping® Newsletter looks at the Copyright Implications of AI-Generated Music.

For creative professionals and especially musicians, trying to evaluate the impact of AI on both creative and commercial rights and music, raises more questions than it answers. For our quick and by no means exhaustive summary of some of these questions, read more below.

The Copyright implications of AI-generated music is fast becoming a major issue as AI tools capable of creating music that mimics human artists have proliferated. Some key questions
Continue Reading Ping® by Adlerlaw – The Copyright Implications Of AI-Generated Music

Today, the Supreme Court unanimously provided an opinion on a First Amendment and trademark matter finding that The Lanham Act’s “names clause” that “[c]onsists of or comprises a name . . . identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent,” 15 U. S. C. §1052(c) does not run afoul of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause, and reversed the Federal Circuit. Vidal v. Elster 602 U. S. ____ (2024).

Procedural Background
Elster filed a trademark application for “TRUMP TOO SMALL.” The Examining Attorney at the United States Patent and Trademark Office refused registration on the
Continue Reading Supreme Court Holds No First Amendment Issue With Name Consent – Vidal v. Elster (2024)

Maxell Ltd. v. Amperex Tech. Ltd.

Docket No. 2023-1194

LOURIE, CHEN, CUNNINGHAM

March 6, 2024

Brief Summary:  DC indefiniteness decision reversed and remanded as “there is no contradiction in the claim language” (limitations to Markush group of transition elements and 30-100% per mole).

Summary:   U.S. Patent No. 9,077,035, owned by Maxell, describes a rechargeable lithium-ion battery and the claims are directed to a lithium-ion battery with a specific composition of lithium-containing transition metal oxides.  The DC found the claim language defining transition metal element M1 to be indefinite, leading to a partial final judgment in favor of Amperex.  The FC
Continue Reading DC indefiniteness finding reversed and remanded as no contradiction in claim limitations

KC

Tell us about our role at Snarkitecture! How long have you been there, and what is your role for this particular project?

CE

Hi, my name is Clarisse Empaynado. I am a Filipino designer and ceramic artist. I began my journey with Snarkitecture in 2019, and despite the pandemic, we are still here, years later, creating innovative work.I am the project/design lead for this collaboration. This means I oversee and manage the project from design to completion, with support from the Snarkitecture and Jayaram teams.

KC

This project is a bit different, as you are not only designing it,
Continue Reading Clarisse Empaynado x Kelly Caputo

“It feels like the rules have changed,or there are no more rules about what works or doesn’t from a standpoint of workspace.”

VJ

So, Alex, we’ve known each other since the earliest days of Snarkitecture. Do you remember how the firm got started?

AM

Yeah, I have a pretty clear memory of walking down the street in New York on the phone with Daniel Arsham (Snarkitecture Co-Founder). He was living in Miami and we were collaborating on projects, and he pitched the idea of starting a practice. It seemed like kind of a ridiculous idea at the time, but it took
Continue Reading Vivek Jayaram x Alex Mustonen

As lawyers representing creators, we constantly strive to match our approach to legal issues with our clients’ goals and desired outcomes. Doing so requires a keen understanding of the distinct manner in which each client approaches their business, art, and professional and creative identity. This concept is exemplified through the type of collaboration the lawyers here at Jayaram and our dear friends, colleagues, and office mates, Snarkitecture, regularly engage in.This article sheds some light on this relationship through the lens of drafting and negotiating Snarkitecture’s various contracts, and how a deep understanding of Snarkitecture’s creative identity and its industry plays
Continue Reading Architecting Pillars of Collaboration

NPE activity ramped up slightly in May.* Frequent filers included Adaptive Avenue Associates, Communication Interface Technologies, eCeipt, Interface IP, Recog IP, S3G Technology, Symbology Innovations, and Tiare Technology.

As usual, I prepared the report in partnership with and using Docket Navigator and its powerful database. Docket Navigator is a valuable resource, and the place to go if you want to keep track of new patent litigation filings or want to know what is happening in particular cases, how your judge has historically handled a particular type of motion, or a particular plaintiff’s litigation history. Finally, please let me know if
Continue Reading MAY 2023 RETAIL PATENT LITIGATION REPORT

Spring came in like a lamb in the NPE world. NPE activity was light in April.* Frequent filers included Adaptive Avenue Associates, Advanced Transactions, Communication Interface Technologies, Innovaport, Linfo IP, and SITO Mobile R&D IP.

As usual, I prepared the report in partnership with and using Docket Navigator and its powerful database. Docket Navigator is a valuable resource, and the place to go if you want to keep track of new patent litigation filings or want to know what is happening in particular cases, how your judge has historically handled a particular type of motion, or a particular plaintiff’s litigation
Continue Reading APRIL 2023 RETAIL PATENT LITIGATION REPORT

NPE activity was light in March.* Frequent filers included Advanced Transactions, Locket IP, Rothschild, and Tron Holdings.

As usual, I prepared the report in partnership with and using Docket Navigator and its powerful database. Docket Navigator is a valuable resource, and the place to go if you want to keep track of new patent litigation filings or want to know what is happening in particular cases, how your judge has historically handled a particular type of motion, or a particular plaintiff’s litigation history. Finally, please let me know if you have thoughts about the report or changes you would like
Continue Reading MARCH 2023 RETAIL PATENT LITIGATION REPORT

NPE activity was very light in February.* Frequent filers included AuthWallet, Cedar Lane Technologies, and Dynapass IP Holdings.

As usual, I prepared the report in partnership with and using Docket Navigator and its powerful database. Docket Navigator is a valuable resource, and the place to go if you want to keep track of new patent litigation filings or want to know what is happening in particular cases, how your judge has historically handled a particular type of motion, or a particular plaintiff’s litigation history. Finally, please let me know if you have thoughts about the report or changes you would
Continue Reading FEBRUARY 2023 RETAIL PATENT LITIGATION REPORT

The NPEs came back from their holidays with increased filings.* Frequent filers included AML IP, Cedar Lane Technologies, Communication Interface Technologies, Innovaport, Lockport, IP, Recog IP, Ridgeview IP, S3G Technology, and Sockeye Licensing.

As usual, I prepared the report in partnership with and using Docket Navigator and its powerful database. Docket Navigator is a valuable resource, and the place to go if you want to keep track of new patent litigation filings or want to know what is happening in particular cases, how your judge has historically handled a particular type of motion, or a particular plaintiff’s litigation history. Finally,
Continue Reading JANUARY 2023 RETAIL PATENT LITIGATION REPORT

Sumitomo Pharma Co., Ltd. v. USPTO (Intervenor)

Docket No. 2022-2276 (IPR2020-01053) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-2276.OPINION.4-5-2024_2296961.pdf)

TARANTO, HUGHES, CUNNINGHAM

April 5, 2024

Brief Summary:  Sumimoto’s appeal of IPR obviousness decision vacated and remanded for dismissal as the disputed patent was expired as of the appeal and Sumimoto had no interest in past or future infringement.

Summary:   Sumimoto appealed IPR decision finding all 75 claims of US 5,532,372 directed to “[a] method for treating schizophrenia in a patient without a clinically significant weight gain” (“weight gain being a recognized adverse side-effect of many antipsychotic drugs”) using lurasidone.  The FC panel opinion is focused
Continue Reading IPR obviousness decision vacated and remanded as patent expired and Sumimoto had no “interest in any forward-looking exclusion” or past infringement by unlicensed sales (IPR addresses “patient” vs. population but not discussed here)

A Notice of Allowance is a document from the USPTO informing you that you can file a Statement of Use and/or Extension of Time within 6 months from the date of issuance. The USPTO will send the Notice of Allowance to you or your attorney via email. As illustrated below, the Notice of Allowance is near the trademark pendency process finish line.

A trademark Notice of Allowance is your opportunity to file a Statement of Use and/or Extension of Time within 6 months from the date of its issuance.

Some applicants see this document and give up due to a
Continue Reading What is a Notice of Allowance (Trademark)?

AI Visualize, Inc. v. Nuance Communications, Inc., Mach7 Technologies, Inc.

Docket No. 2022-2109 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-2109.OPINION.4-4-2024_2296276.pdf)

MOORE, REYNA, HUGHES

April 4, 2024

Brief Summary:  DC grant of motion to dismiss due to 101 ineligibility affirmed.

Summary:   AI appealed DC grant of a motion to dismiss (12(b)(6)) that the claims of its US 8,701,167; 9,106,609; 9,438,667; and 10,930,397 asserted against Nuance are “directed to an abstract idea and failed to provide an inventive step that transformed that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention” and therefore ineligible under section 101.  The patents related to systems for “advanced visualization of medical scans using
Continue Reading DC grant of motion to dismiss due to 101 ineligibility affirmed (abstract idea, no “improvement in computer technologies”)

Salix Pharm., Ltd. et al. v. Norwich Pharm. Inc.

Docket No. 2022-2153, -1952 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-2153.OPINION.4-11-2024_2300049.pdf)

LOURIE, CHEN, CUNNINGHAM

April 11, 2024

Brief Summary:  DC obviousness of method of treatment and polymorph patents and ANDA-related (FDA cannot approve current ANDA, correctly denied ANDA amendment) decisions affirmed. 

NOTE: Salix argued it “actually succeed[ed]” and did not expect to succeed because the beta form “remained undisclosed”, which the FC panel summarized as incorrectly suggesting “that no unknown entity could ever be obvious, as one cannot reasonably expect what was hitherto unknown”.

Summary:  Salix appealed DC judgment holding claim 2 of US 8,309,569,
Continue Reading DC obviousness and procedural ANDA-related decisions affirmed