Patent Applications, Statute of Limitations

Trade Secret Rights May be Lost Because of A Failure to Review a Competitor’s Prior Art Patent Applications

Sunstein LLP on 3/28/2025

A recent decision from a California federal district court should make patent prosecutors and their clients more alert when looking at recent prior art references: they may refer to patent applications filed by competitors...more

9th Circuit Upholds Continuing Use Doctrine Under the DTSA

CDF Labor Law LLP on 2/18/2021

Recently, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a matter of first impression holding that an alleged misappropriation of a trade secret that occurred before the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) was enacted in 2016 may form the basis...more

The Odyssey Must Be Timed Just Right

McDermott Will & Emery on 6/6/2020

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed a district court’s analysis under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of three challenges to the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), affirming the district...more

Appellate Court Reinforces When the Attorney-Client Relationship Ends for Purposes of “Continuous Representation” Tolling...

Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP on 10/20/2016

In Gotek Energy, Inc. v. Socal IP Law Group, LLP (No. B26668, October 12, 2016), the Second District Court of Appeal held that rather than the date on which a client file is transferred to new counsel, the attorney-client...more

PTO Revival Rulings Are Not Subject to Collateral Attacks by Third Parties - Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC v. Lee

McDermott Will & Emery on 5/6/2015

Addressing whether third parties have the right to challenge a patent revival ruling by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...more

Federal Circuit Confirms That U.S. Priority Claim Must Be Considered When Assessing Interference Timeliness

Foley & Lardner LLP on 9/11/2012

In Loughlin v. Ling, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences that had canceled the sole claim of Loughlin’s patent in an interference proceeding. The decision turned on...more