In withdrawing the 2013 statement, the new 2019 guidance by the DOJ, NIST and the USPTO states the obvious, i.e. that there is no difference in the law between F/RAND assured standard essential patents and all other patents. While some would have perhaps liked to break the unitarity approach of the patent system so as to weaken remedies against the infringement of essential patents, a legal system that would apply a different standard to standard essential patents as opposed to other patents would violate U.S. trade obligations.
The New U.S. Essential Patents Statement – Safeguarding the Integrity of the Patent System
No Comments
Patent
- Enablement
- Fee Shifting
- Litigation
- The Right Choice: IP Stakeholders Emphasize Practical Experience, Strong IP Advocacy in Next USPTO Head
- USPTO Responds to Patent Bar Gender Gap Inquiry, Mulls Changes to Registration Process
- How Patents Enable Mavericks and Challenge Incumbents
- ipAwarenessAssessment: Inventors and Business Owners Should Start Their IP Journey with this USPTO-NIST Tool
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, January 22: Iancu and Peter Step Down from USPTO, CJEU Asked Whether Preliminary Injunction Standard Burdens Patent Owners, SCOTUS Denial Leaves Invalidation of Idenix Genus Patent Claims Untouched
Recent Posts
- The Right Choice: IP Stakeholders Emphasize Practical Experience, Strong IP Advocacy in Next USPTO Head
- USPTO Responds to Patent Bar Gender Gap Inquiry, Mulls Changes to Registration Process
- How Patents Enable Mavericks and Challenge Incumbents
- ipAwarenessAssessment: Inventors and Business Owners Should Start Their IP Journey with this USPTO-NIST Tool
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, January 22: Iancu and Peter Step Down from USPTO, CJEU Asked Whether Preliminary Injunction Standard Burdens Patent Owners, SCOTUS Denial Leaves Invalidation of Idenix Genus Patent Claims Untouched