Search this site

Despite their best efforts, patent practitioners may reach an impasse during negotiations with patent examiners at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). If an applicant still desires patent protection, it can authorize the filing of a notice of appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and an associated appeal brief. Over the years, I’ve observed some patent attorneys and agents approach ex parte appeals as essentially a document assembly exercise: arguments from past Office action responses are pasted into a template and then submitted to the PTAB. In my view, such an approach represents a missed opportunity to present the strongest possible case for patentability. In a worst-case scenario, it may even prevent a client from securing the patent protection it deserves. To maximize clients’ chances of success, practitioners instead should approach appeals with the mindset of a strategist and advocate. To read the full article, please visit IPWatchdog .

Technology companies face patent-related decision points around seemingly every corner. The consequences of suboptimal decision-making are troubling, including wasteful expenditures, missed strategic opportunities, and diminished shareholder value. Therefore, enterprises should not hesitate to continually reflect on the quality of their patent filing and maintenance decisions, and on the framework that supports them. Cognitive bias—defined as “the collection of faulty ways of thinking … hardwired into the human brain”—can hijack p atent decision processes just as it does every other area of human endeavor. As such, it can lead to suboptimal outcomes despite IP stakeholders’ sincere, dedicated participation. IP leaders who recognize the pervasiveness of cognitive bias can take proactive steps to mitigate its influence over patent filing and maintenance decisions. To read the full article, please visit IPWatchdog .

In the IP field, and countless others, online or virtual meetings have become ingrained in professional life. Although united as users, we don’t uniformly leverage the functionality available on conference platforms. Notably, some of us diverge in our use, or non-use, of webcams during online meetings. In my view, regular use of video conferencing enriches the quality of online meetings, while contributing to users’ professional success in the near- and long-term. Conversely, consistently avoiding the use of video may disadvantage non-users in consequential ways. To read the full article, please visit IPWatchdog .

Most technology enterprises are well-acquainted with NDAs. On the positive side, they recognize the importance of entering into NDAs with outside parties before disclosing confidential information, whether in the context of discussions related to potential commercial transactions, funding, or joint R&D projects, or for other purposes, such as to support product-related investigations or certification activities. On the negative side, enterprises commonly associate the negotiation of NDAs with cumbersome paperwork, obstacles, and delay. As discussed below, the high-profile case ZeniMax Media Inc. v. Oculus VR, Inc. offers useful insights for enterprises seeking to maximize the benefits of NDAs while minimizing the time and effort needed to negotiate them. To read the full article, please visit IPWatchdog .