The PTAB shows that the notice requirement of Section 132 does have teeth. Read about a particularly egregious rejection from art unit 3747.

Do not let examiners slip a rejection by you based on the idea that the prior art is capable of performing claimed actions of a method.

PPH requests are a great way to move your case to allowance in the US. Learn some tips to make the process even smoother.

Don’t wait until it is too late to secure your trademark rights.

Learn about mutual exclusivity and the variable definitions applied by the USPTO in restriction practice.

Following up on our previous post discussing Vanda, some interesting issues on conditional language are considered.

Oil States - Gorsuch, joined by the Chief Justice, writes a strong dissent that calls the majority’s reasoning into serious questions. Law students will likely be studying this one for years to come.

In Vanda, the Federal Circuit lays out a path for patenting diagnostics inventions post Mayo.

The new USPTO Director delivers a powerful speech indicating a new direction for the US Patent Office.

We review a case illustrating a great way to win a petition against a restriction by using the Office's own actions to prove there is no search burden.

Don't let USPTO examiners get away with a fast one by relying on ordinary creativity in a way that conflicts with recent Federal Circuit case law.

A recent Board decision for a Cabela's invention shows how much support is really needed to add "negative" claim limitations that are not word-for-word from the specification.

In Tinder's suit against Bumble, the power of design patents in the software industry is on full display.  

Attacking obvious to try rejections that use the inventor's own recognition of how to break things down.

Tinder sues Bumble, including using one of its recently issued Utility Patents.

Dissents are rare in Ex Parte appeals at the PTAB. A recent Section 101 appeal illustrates that sometimes even a PTAB judge thinks the PTAB goes too far in affirming Section 101 rejections.

The USPTO gears up for U.S. 10,000,000.

Do not let examiners get away with an improper restriction that limits your ability to make amendments that avoid the cited prior art.

We review an example of how some examiners try every trick in the book in the hopes that the applicant will get frustrated and give up.