The Arthrex Fix Is No Fix At All – In an article posted on iam-media.com, Paul Morinville reports that “[t]he long-awaited SCOTUS Arthrex decision does not provide the solution to the problem at the heart of the case.”
Texas Court Bounces Triller/TikTok Patent Dispute to California – Chris Cooke wrote an article on completemusicupdate.com reporting about how a Texas district judge sent a patent case between Triller and TikTok to the courts in California, perhaps due to criticism by the Federal Circuit.
Are 5% of All U.S. Issued Patents Presumed to Be Unenforceable Under Laches Due to Their Priority Claims? – On IPWatchDog.com, Kate Gaudry reports on the “potential impacts” of the recent Federal Circuit case Hyatt v Hirshfeld concerning prosecution laches.
The Arthrex Fix Is No Fix At All
In an article on iam-media.com, Paul Morinville focuses on the recent Supreme Court case United States v. Arthrex, where “Chief Justice Roberts fixed a Constitutional defect in the authority of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) administrative patent judges (APJs) by severing a clause in 35 USC § 6(c) that prevented the USPTO Director from reviewing the PTAB’s final decisions.” Morinville explains that the Arthrex decision “requires both new regulations and rescission and amendment of old ones.” Further, Morinville states that the “fix for Arthrex” is “to start the rulemaking process and put PTAB proceedings on hold until a permanent director has been nominated, confirmed and sworn in.” “Anything else,” he says, “will be a train wreck as cases that will take years to unravel through appeals to Article III courts pile on top of one another.”
Texas Court Bounces Triller/TikTok Patent Dispute to California
Chris Cooke reports on CompleteMusicUpdate.com that “following a request by [TikTok’s] owner Bytedance . . . [Judge Alan Albright] in Texas has agreed to bounce a patent dispute between Triller and TikTok to the courts in California.” Cooke explains that Bytedance “argued that the Texan court where Triller had filed its lawsuit was not an appropriate forum for the dispute, give both app makers have key operations in California.” Additionally, Cooke notes, “Albright was recently criticised by the US Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit in Washington . . . over his handling of other requests to move patent cases out of his court, which may or may not have made him more open to Bytedance’s motion in this dispute.”
Are 5% of All U.S. Issued Patents Presumed to Be Unenforceable Under Laches Due to Their Priority Claims?
On IPWatchDog.com, Kate Gaudry explains the “potential impacts” of Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, a case that “pertained to the laches defense raised by the USPTO when Hyatt filed an action [under the applicable statute] to obtain four patents subsequent to receiving an affirmance of rejections of various claims at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).” Gaudry reasons that, following Hyatt, “if the time between a filing of a U.S. or PCT priority application and filing of a continuing application exceeds six years, it is presumed that prosecution laches applies.” As a result of the opinion, Gaudry has investigated priority data for all US patents issued in 2019 and asks: “[D]oes Hyatt mean that laches is presumed to apply to 5% of patents that are issued?” Gaudry states it is “important to carefully consider the potential impacts before any such rule is defined.”