Federal Circuit Clarifies Concept of "Conception"
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently issued a significant opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc., providing fundamental guidance on the legal standard of "conception" in patent law. The decision vacates the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) 2022 interference ruling in the long-running CRISPR-Cas9 patent dispute and remands the case for further consideration under the clarified standard. While interferences are close to becoming obsolete as there are few pending pre-AIA applications still eligible for interference proceedings, the decision is still highly relevant in other post-AIA contexts.
Sigray – Implicit Claim Construction and Anticipation by Inherency
In Sigray, Inc. v. Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) engaged in implicit and erroneous claim construction, and concluded that the claimed magnification range of an X-ray imaging system of a patent owned by Zeiss is inherently disclosed in an anticipatory prior art reference. The Sigray decision is an important reminder of two principles: (1) that an inherent disclosure can anticipate claims even if the inherent feature is unrecognized, unintentional, or undesirable, and (2) that the claim language governs the scope and meaning of the claim.
China's Anti-Unfair Competition Law Amended, Effective October 15, 2025
China's legislature passed an amended Anti-Unfair Competition Law ("Amended Law") on June 27, 2025, which will take effect on October 15, 2025. This marks the third amendment to the law since its initial implementation in 1993. The number of Articles has increased from 33 to 41 by this amendment, reflecting an effort to adapt to new developments in the internet industry and directly address emerging issues of unfair competition online. The amendment aims to further improve fair competition rules within the digital economy.
Applying Machine Learning to a New Field Does Not Impart Patent Eligibility
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court's dismissal of a complaint for infringement of machine learning patents based on subject matter ineligibility of the patent claims under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court had concluded that the claims recited known machine learning algorithms and did not provide a specific method for improving the algorithm, nor did they add "significantly more" to the abstract idea of using a generic machine learning algorithm in a specific field. Thus, the claims were deemed to be invalid. On appeal, the Federal Circuit distilled the matter down to the question of whether applying established methods of machine learning to new fields imparts patent eligibility, concluding that it does not. This decision highlights the importance of drafting claims related to machine learning algorithms to avoid "generic" language and, where possible, tying inventive methods to physical improvements of the computer or system. In addition, Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. provides guidance to patent drafters regarding the need for adequate description of methods using machine learning (ML) and/or artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms. Finally, the decision raises broader questions regarding patent subject matter eligibility of claims directed towards ML and/or AI algorithms.
Tokyo District Court Grants Unprecedented Injunction in SEP Case
In a rare outcome, the Tokyo District Court granted a landmark injunction against Google on June 23, 2025, in a patent infringement suit brought by Pantech. It is unusual for the Japanese court to grant such relief; however, the facts of the case played an important role in reaching the result. Pantech's asserted patent is classified as SEP and declared under FRAND terms.
Decision G1/24 Provides Guidance on Claim Interpretation Before The EPO
On June 18, 2025, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO), the highest judicial authority under the European Patent Convention (EPC), issued decision G1/24 relating to claim interpretation for the purpose of assessing the patentability of an invention. The Enlarged Board of Appeal, considering the role to be attributed to the description in the patentability assessment, has established that the claims alone do not suffice for the purpose, that they are only the starting point, and that the description (and any drawings, when present) must always be consulted. In view of authority of the Enlarged Board, decision G1/24 will have an impact on the assessment of patentability of any European patent application prosecuted before EPO Examining Divisions as well as on the assessment of validity of any European patent before the EPO Opposition Divisions and Boards of Appeal.
CNIPA Issues Draft Amendments to Patent Examination Guidelines Focusing on Emerging Technologies and Practical Examination Issues
On April 30, 2025, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released Draft Amendments to the Patent Examination Guidelines (Comment Draft). The Comment Draft introduces revisions that reflect CNIPA's response to developments in emerging technologies targeting AI and video codec sectors as well as certain practical examination issues. Some key proposed changes are as follows:
Federal Circuit Drives Another Nail into Patent Owners' Coffins in Ingenico v. IOENGINE
In what has to rank as one of the most anti-patent owner decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in recent years, the court held that "IPR estoppel does not preclude a [failed IPR] petitioner from relying on the same patents and printed publications as evidence in asserting a ground [of invalidity at a subsequent district court trial] that could not be raised during the IPR." In resolving a sharp split of district court authority on the scope of Inter Partes Review (IPR) estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) in favor of accused infringers and patent validity challengers, the Federal Circuit has again substantially devalued patents and the intellectual property of all patent owners. Some new ways to "game the system" created and approved by the court in Ingenico are all too easily seen, while clever counsel representing accused infringers will surely conjure others not immediately apparent.
Patent Agent Advancement
A physicist turned Patent Engineer. A seismic chief R&D advisor turned Patent Agent. An R&D engineer turned Patent Attorney and Partner. These are just a few examples of the career transitions made possible by the Osha Bergman Watanabe & Burton (OBWB) Intellectual Property Training Program (IPTP).
The Geographic Coverage of European Patents Keeps Growing
Through a single European patent application filed with the European Patent Office (EPO) and undergoing a single examination process, inventors and businesses now can obtain patent protection in no less than 46 countries. This is the result of a recent agreement between the European Patent Organization and a Southeast Asian country located a long way from Europe: Laos. The geographic coverage of European patents continues to grow on a global scale and this growth shows no signs of stopping since another agreement was recently signed with Costa Rica.
