USPTO Watch
Rulemaking, discipline, designations, and decisions inside the Office.
Federal Circuit Affirms Obviousness Ruling on Network Intrusion Monitoring Patent in BT Americas Appeal
In a nonprecedential October 29 opinion, the court upheld the Board's ruling that claims 1 to 25 of U.S. Patent No. 7,895,641 are unpatentable as obvious, and again rejected the argument that the Board lacks jurisdiction over an expired patent.
Federal Circuit Grants USPTO Director's Remand Request in Percept IPR Appeal Over Percept's Opposition
In a nonprecedential October 28 order, the court sent IPR2023-00495 back to the agency for the limited purpose of letting the Director further explain the issues raised in the order and the motion, which concern the reasoning on how the prior art meets a disputed eye tracking limitation.
Federal Circuit Holds Word Metadata Can Corroborate an Inventor's Conception Testimony
In a precedential October 19 opinion, the court affirmed a Board decision that Google had not shown claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 6,728,704 unpatentable, after the Board found that the inventors had conceived of the invention before an earlier-filed reference and had been diligent until they filed.
Federal Circuit Affirms PGR Loss for UPL Fungicide Patent and Board's Denial of Leave to Seek Sanctions
In a nonprecedential October 14 opinion, the court affirmed the Board's holding that all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,445,727 are unpatentable, and found no abuse of discretion in the Board's reliance on the safe harbor in 37 C.F.R. 42.11(d)(2) to deny Syngenta leave to file a sanctions motion, because UPL had already withdrawn its reliance on the field-trial data Syngenta challenged.
FDA Sets MONOFERRIC's Regulatory Review Period for Patent Term Extension
In an October 9 Federal Register notice, FDA determined that MONOFERRIC's regulatory review period is 3,292 days. The notice states that the USPTO received a patent term restoration application from Pharmacosmos Holding A/S for MONOFERRIC (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,815,301 and 10,414,831) and that the applicant seeks 1,136 days of patent term extension.
What It Means When the PTAB Calls a Decision "Informative"
In August 2026 the USPTO designated a Markush-claim appeal decision as informative after a stakeholder nominated it. Informative decisions are not binding, but under the Board's procedures they set out norms that should be followed in most cases, absent justification.