Patent Center Replaces EFS-Web and Private PAIR 

• On November 15, following a one-week delay, the legacy EFS-Web and Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (Private PAIR) systems were officially retired and fully replaced by the Patent Center system. In a blog post, Commissioner for Patents Vaishali Udupa described the Patent Center system as a "one-stop shop" for USPTO customers that integrates all the steps of filing and managing a patent application together into one central system.

USPTO News 

• On November 9, the USPTO announced that a new assignment system, Intellectual Property Assignment System (IPAS), will be available to customers starting on January 15, 2024. IPAS will replace the Electronic Trademark Assignment System (ETAS) and the Electronic Patent Assignment System (EPAS) and will combine their functionality into one system. 

• The USPTO issued a summary of responses to its June 2023 Request for Comments (RFC) requesting public input on where to establish the Southeastern Regional Office (SERO) and the Northern New England Community Outreach Office (NNECOO) as required by the Unleashing American Innovators Act of 2022. 

• On November 17, the USPTO and the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) launched an Accelerated Patent Grant (APG) initiative that gives eligible patent applicants the option of using an expedited process for obtaining a patent grant in Mexico based on a US patent grant. 

Notices, Guidance, and Requests 

• Semiconductor Technology Pilot Program, 88 Fed. Reg. 83925 (Dec. 1, 2023) (press release) [announcing the Semiconductor Technology Pilot Program, which is designed to accelerate improvements in the semiconductor industry by expediting examination of patent applications for certain semiconductor manufacturing innovations. The program will accept petitions to make special beginning December 1, 2023 until either December 2, 2024 or the date the USPTO accepts a total of 1,000 grantable petitions, whichever occurs first] 

• Guidance: Examination of Design Patent Applications Related to Computer-generated Electronic Images, Including Computer-generated Icons and Graphical User Interfaces, 88 Fed. Reg. 80277 (Nov. 17, 2023) [publishing supplemental guidance to be used by USPTO personnel in determining whether a design claim including a computer-generated electronic image is directed to statutory subject matter] 

Final Rules 

• Representation of Others in Design Patent Matters Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, 88 Fed. Reg. 78644 (Nov. 16, 2023) (effective Jan. 2, 2024) [amending the rules of practice in patent cases and the rules regarding the representation of others before the USPTO by creating a separate design patent practitioner bar whereby admitted design patent practitioners would practice in design patent proceedings only] 

Interim Rules 

• There are no new interim rules. 

Proposed Rules 

• There are no new proposed rules. 

PTAB Decisions 

• New Precedential PTAB Decisions  

  • Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse, Inc., IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 (March 10, 2023) (designated: November 15, 2023) [clarifying the distinction between pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(d) and holding that the requirement in Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) that under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), a reference patent’s claims must have written description support in its provisional application in order to be entitled to the filing date of the provisional application, does not apply to AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(d)] 

• New Informative PTAB Decisions 

  • There are no new informative PTAB decisions. 

• New Director Review Decisions 

  • Weber, Inc. v. Provisur Technologies, Inc., IPR2022-00599 

    • Decision subject to Director Review – Paper 67 (public version of confidential Paper 65) (August 29, 2023) [Final Written Decision finding some claims unpatentable] 

    • Decision vacating Final Written Decision and remanding for further proceedings – Paper 74 (November 29, 2023) [finding that “the Board should have either (i) considered Patent Owner’s evidence [supporting its arguments on motivation to combine], when determining whether Petitioner has sufficiently established a motivation to combine the cited references, or (ii) excluded the evidence in response to Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude"] 

  • ResMed Corp. v. Cleveland Medical Devices Ind., IPR2023-00565 

    • Decision subject to Director Review – Paper 13 (September 25, 2023) [Institution Decision denying institution] 

    • Decision granting Director Review, vacating decision denying institution, and remanding for further proceedings – Paper 15 (November 16, 2023) [finding that “there is good cause to authorize Petitioner to file a reply on the § 314(a) issues raised by Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply [because] Petitioner did not have the opportunity to address Patent Owner’s new argument on time-to-trial statistics for [the district court judge and because the] Board relied on the vacated Vector Flow decision to resolve the time-to-trial statistics to weigh in favor of discretionarily denying institution.”] 

  • SynAffix B.V. v. Hangzhou DAC Biotech Co., Ltd., IPR2022-01531 

    • Decision subject to Director Review – Paper 17 (August 22, 2023) [Institution Decision denying institution] 

    • Order delegating Director Review to a Delegated Rehearing Panel – Paper 19 (November 16, 2023) [ordering review by an independent Delegated Rehearing Panel, selected from a pool of senior judges excluding those who issued the reviewed decision, to "review the issues presented in this case ... and to determine whether to grant rehearing"]

  • DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. Diogenes Limited, IPR2023-00268               

    • Decision subject to Director Review – Paper 9 (August 11, 2023) [Institution Decision denying institution] 

    • Order delegating Director Review to a Delegated Rehearing Panel – Paper 11 (November 7, 2023) [ordering review by an independent Delegated Rehearing Panel, selected from a pool of senior judges excluding those who issued the reviewed decision, to "review the fact-intensive issues presented in this case ... and to determine whether to grant rehearing"]