I just returned from the 2016 summer OR show in Salt Lake City where I was invited to speak on intellectual property issues as they relate to the outdoor industry.

In a recent ex parte appeal to the PTAB (13/296,787), BMW challenged a rejection related to a way to utilize an electronic braking system upon actuation of an operative element (e.g., a parking brake)

In a recent IPR appeal at the Federal Circuit, the Court reviewed the Board’s claim construction de novo and found that the Board improperly added an element to their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the claim terms

In in re Magnum Oil Tools International, the Federal Circuit rejected a crafty approach by the USPTO to shift the burden to the patentee in proving non-obviousness in an IPR. 

The usually boring world of vehicle emissions has taken center stage recently with the revelation that VW employed “defeat device” software on its vehicles to game emission compliance tests. The recent lawsuits by New York and Massachusetts bring new details to light regarding VW’s software. While not discussed in the media yet, patent filings by…

Find out why It may be prudent when drafting a US provisional application to include multiple dependent claims, and to include multiple dependent claims rewritten in paragraph form into the specification when drafting a regular US application (or a provisional). 

A design patent is found obvious by combining references to achieve a functional result, rather than an improved ornamental design.

Listing terms in a Markush group with “and” versus “or” can make a difference.

The Federal Circuit calls out the USPTO for employing a version of the fallacy of the undistributed middle, noting that just because each of a dog and a cat has four legs does not mean that it would be reasonable to conclude that a cat is a dog under the BRI.  

With the large increase in ex parte appeals at the USPTO, Appellants should take care to deal with Section 112 issues to avoid giving the Board an easy affirmance.