Contact Us
Contact Us

Contact Us Now


Print Page

S&H IP Blog


September 17, 2020 | By S&H
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | USPTO News

2020 Update on U.S. Women Inventor-Patentees

The USPTO recently released a 2020 update regarding U.S. women inventor-patentees, incorporating three years of new data and nearly one million issued patents to their previous 2016 report. The information was obtained via PatentsView, a free database supported by the USPTO Office of the Chief Economist.            


September 17, 2020 | By S&H
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | USPTO News

Issue Fee Amounts

Notices of Allowance (NOA) mailed by the USPTO between September 9th and September 15th may list an incorrect issue fee amount that mistakenly incorporated the new fee rule. The new rule is effective October 2nd, 2020 and will only be reflected in Notices of Allowance sent on or after that date. In each affected case, the USPTO will mail a corrected NOA. The corrected NOA will contain the correct issue fee and reset the time period for payment. The USPTO will reach out to those who have already paid the issue fee with further guidance.


September 17, 2020 | By S&H
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | USPTO News

USPTO Fast-Track Appeals Pilot Program

On July 2, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) launched the Fast-Track Appeals Pilot Program to speed up patent examination and ex parte appeals. The USPTO expects the average ex parte appeal to be decided within six months from the date a petition to request the fast-track appeal is granted.  


September 17, 2020 | By S&H
Posted in: S&H IP Blog

Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Commc’n Tech. (precedential)

On August 4, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a district court's infringement finding and its rulings regarding owed royalties, concerning the infringement of two patents directed to LTE technology owned by Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 (IP Bridge). In an apparent issue of first impression, the CAFC held that comparing the asserted claims of a patent against an industry standard to determine whether the claims are essential to the standard, is akin to an infringement analysis, and therefore is a fact issue decidable by a jury, and not a question of law that must be decided by the court.


STAAS & HALSEY LLP

Firm Logo

1201 New York Avenue, N.W.
7th Floor

Washington, D.C. 20005

T. 202.434.1500 | F. 202.434.1501

View on Google Maps

Back to Top

Privacy Notification

This website uses cookies to improve functionality and performance. If you continue browsing the site, you are giving implied consent to the use of cookies and tracking on this website. See our Privacy Policy for details.