Imagine That IP Law Blog

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today announced that the After Final Consideration Pilot Program 2.0 (AFCP 2.0) will be allowed to expire. Originally launched in 2013 to facilitate better interaction between patent applicants and examiners after a final rejection, AFCP 2.0 provided a framework for further consideration of claims without the need for expensive and time-consuming appeals or Requests for Continued Examination (RCEs). The program's expiration marks the end of a decade-long pilot, but the USPTO has extended the deadline for final requests ... Read More ›

UPDATE:  On September 30, 2024 The United States Patent and Trademark Office  announced that the After Final Consideration Pilot Program 2.0 (AFCP 2.0) will be allowed to expire. See The Expiration of the After Final Consideration Pilot Program 2.0 (AFCP 2.0)

Final rejections are inevitable in patent prosecution, often requiring patent practitioners and applicants to carefully consider their next steps. While a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) is a common option, it is not always the most cost-effective, especially when a response can be submitted within the shortened ... Read More ›

Earlier this year, based on a suggestion from the Congress of the United States, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) implemented the Deferred Subject Matter Eligibility Pilot Program (“Pilot Program”). During the duration of the Pilot Program, the USPTO will be evaluating the effects of permitting applicants to defer responding to Subject Matter Eligibility Rejections, i.e., 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections. The Pilot Program began in February of this year and runs through the end of July, and will likely have a large impact in art units focused on Artificial ... Read More ›

2021 has seen many different trends, with a large one being break ups, specifically, major companies splitting into multiple entities. Earlier this year, several fortune 500 companies, including General Electric (GE) and Toshiba announced that they would be splitting into multiple entities. But how do intellectual property (IP) rights play into these major spin offs?

Splitting companies and determining where the IP rights will go requires careful consideration of a variety of factors. While it may be clear where some IP goes, such as specific patents or trademarks, other IP may ... Read More ›

With a new decade underway, copyright holders are one step closer to having a new avenue to protect their work.  On October 22, 2019 the House of Representatives passed the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act H.R. 2426 (“CASE Act”) with an overwhelming 410-6 vote. 

The CASE Act will create a Copyright Claims Board (“Board”), which will be a body within the United State Copyright Office.  This Board will serve as a voluntary alternative to copyright holders bringing a case in court.  If both parties voluntarily agree to have the dispute heard by the Board, they ... Read More ›

March’s arrival signals the onset of Spring and college basketball bracket battles. The three-week basketball tournament gradually whittles 64 teams down to two for a final showdown. It may come as a surprise to fans to learn that the tournament has not always been known as “March Madness” and the National College Athletic Association (NCAA) is not the first organization to use the term. This is particularly surprising given that “March Madness” is the NCAA’s biggest money maker, reaping 85 percent of the organization’s yearly budget.¹ That revenue is made ... Read More ›

With each Olympics, the iconic five interlocking rings and Team USA paraphernalia are inescapable. The high profile and high profit marks are tenaciously protected both on an international and national stage.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) earn billions of dollars worldwide through licensing use of their iconic rings, name, athletes’ images and other trademarks. In fact, being a top sponsor of the Olympics can cost a company hundreds of millions of dollars. Panasonic paid a cool $350 million in 2016 for an eight-year ... Read More ›

The identification of the proper venue for commencing a patent infringement or declaratory judgement action was rather straight forward for a number of years. However,  when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive appellate jurisdiction in patent matters, addressed the venue issue in  VE Holding v. Johnson Gas Appliance, 917 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1990), it liberalized the venue requirement to where the defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction. This decision lead to lower courts applying a liberal view of personal jurisdiction when ... Read More ›