Osha Liang Attended Meetings with WIPO, WTO and EPO

In his role as first deputy reporter general of The International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI), Jonathan Osha joined the bureau delegation that recently visited the WIPO and the WTO in Geneva and the EPO in Munich.

New Guidance from the USPTO on Patent-Eligible Subject Matter

Continuing its efforts to ensure the examining practices of the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") keep pace with the rapidly changing US law in the area of patent-eligible subject matter, the USPTO on April 19, 2018, issued new guidance to examiners on how to determine when claim elements are directed to "well-understood, routine, conventional activities."

China to Restructure SIPO - A Step Toward Better IP Protection

On March 13, 2018, after deliberation at the First Meeting of the 13th National People's Congress of China, the "State Council Institutional Reform Plan" (hereinafter referred to as the "Reform Plan") was passed. This drastic Reform Plan involves the cancellation, formation, or restructure of a number of State Council departments and subordinate agencies under the State Council, including the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO). 

U.S. Supreme Court Validates Inter Partes Review,  Eliminates PTAB's "Partial" Institution Practice

The U.S. Supreme Court issued two decisions on April 24, 2018 that significantly affect litigation strategies for both patent owners and accused infringers in the United States. In Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene's Energy Grp., LLC, the Court approved constitutionality of inter partes review (IPR) and, by implication, the entire system of post-grant validity challenges, including post-grant review (PGR), and covered business method review (CBMR). 

Update on Tribal Sovereignty at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

In October 2017, Osha Liang published an article entitled "Trick or Treat!...or Troll or Tribe?" raising possible ramifications if a patent owner was allowed to avoid an inter partes (IPR) proceeding by transferring its patent rights to a Native American tribe and then relying on the tribe's right of sovereign immunity.  Would the sovereignty of American Indian tribes become an available and coveted defense to avoid being sued in a patent context even where the tribe has no real relation to the patent other than as a way of generating income?