<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</title>
	<atom:link href="https://ipwatchdog.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/</link>
	<description>Trusted on intellectual property law. News and commentary on patents, innovation policy, trade secrets, copyrights and trademarks.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2026 21:42:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>High Court Denies Judge Newman’s Case Against CAFC Chief Judge</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/15/high-court-denies-judge-newmans-case-against-cafc-chief-judge/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/15/high-court-denies-judge-newmans-case-against-cafc-chief-judge/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eileen McDermott]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2026 17:18:49 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chief Judge Kimberly Moore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Pauline Newman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NEwman suspension]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=202559</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Less than two weeks after Judge Pauline Newman filed her reply brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in response to the May 12 opposition brief filed by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Chief Judge Kimberly Moore, the Court has today denied Newman’s petition for certiorari. Newman filed her Supreme Court petition in March of this year.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/15/high-court-denies-judge-newmans-case-against-cafc-chief-judge/">High Court Denies Judge Newman’s Case Against CAFC Chief Judge</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/15/high-court-denies-judge-newmans-case-against-cafc-chief-judge/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Squires Says Tesla IPRs on Vehicle Gear Selection Control Patents Can Proceed Due Partly to U.S. Manufacturing Activities</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/15/squires-says-tesla-iprs-vehicle-gear-selection-control-patents-can-proceed-due-partly-to-u-s-manufacturing-activities/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/15/squires-says-tesla-iprs-vehicle-gear-selection-control-patents-can-proceed-due-partly-to-u-s-manufacturing-activities/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eileen McDermott]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2026 16:15:28 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Director review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discretionary denial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inter partes review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Trial and Appeal Board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patentability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patentability requirements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PTAB]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tesla]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=202582</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced late Monday that it is designating as informative a decision based in part on USPTO Director John Squires’ recent memo outlining additional discretionary denial factors the Office will consider with respect to institution of inter partes review (IPR) and post grant review (PGR) proceedings. Specifically, the decision found that Tesla, Inc.’s evidence of manufacturing activities in the United States, “including that it manufactures the accused products in America,” favored a finding that discretionary denial is not appropriate.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/15/squires-says-tesla-iprs-vehicle-gear-selection-control-patents-can-proceed-due-partly-to-u-s-manufacturing-activities/">Squires Says Tesla IPRs on Vehicle Gear Selection Control Patents Can Proceed Due Partly to U.S. Manufacturing Activities</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/15/squires-says-tesla-iprs-vehicle-gear-selection-control-patents-can-proceed-due-partly-to-u-s-manufacturing-activities/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>CAFC Affirms PTAB Obviousness Ruling for Fluid-Mixing Patent</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/15/cafc-affirms-ptab-obviousness-ruling-for-fluid-mixing-patent/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/15/cafc-affirms-ptab-obviousness-ruling-for-fluid-mixing-patent/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rose Esfandiari]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2026 14:15:30 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inter partes review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obviousness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Trial and Appeal Board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patentability requirements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PTAB]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=202574</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Medmix Switzerland AG v. Squires, affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision that found several claims of a Medmix fluid-mixing patent unpatentable as obvious. The decision upholds the Board’s construction of a disputed claim term and its finding that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the prior art references at issue.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/15/cafc-affirms-ptab-obviousness-ruling-for-fluid-mixing-patent/">CAFC Affirms PTAB Obviousness Ruling for Fluid-Mixing Patent</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/15/cafc-affirms-ptab-obviousness-ruling-for-fluid-mixing-patent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Thompson Patent Law is Seeking a Patent Agent</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/15/thompson-patent-law-is-seeking-a-patent-agent/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[JobOrtunities Help Wanted]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:15:10 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[JobOrtunities Job Board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Thompson Patent Law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=202534</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>A full-time, fully remote role is available at Thompson Patent Law for an experienced Patent Agent. TPL understands that many attorneys are looking for more - a greater challenge, consistent workflow, a meaningful culture, and real opportunities to grow - and offers a steady flow of high-quality patent work, a full-time remote role supported by strong systems, a respectful, values-driven culture, and direct mentorship from Craige Thompson, JD, MBA, EE, PE, Managing Principal Patent Attorney and #1 Amazon best-selling author of Patent Offense. </p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/15/thompson-patent-law-is-seeking-a-patent-agent/">Thompson Patent Law is Seeking a Patent Agent</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Global U.S. Patent Standing Falls Due to Judicially-Created Patent Law</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/14/global-us-patent-standing-falls-due-to-judicially-created-patent-law/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/14/global-us-patent-standing-falls-due-to-judicially-created-patent-law/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sherry Knowles]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Jun 2026 16:15:52 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Contributors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Contributor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obviousness type double patenting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ODP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ODP doctrine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patentability requirements]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=202548</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The United States is the only country in the world where the judiciary forces patent term truncation over unrelated patent families. In Europe, China, and most other nations, the patent laws provide a “novelty only” standard for patent applications filed before the publication of a different earlier filed patent application, and a “novelty and inventive step” standard for patent applications filed after the publication of an earlier filed patent application. The law in virtually every country outside the United States works well using this framework.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/14/global-us-patent-standing-falls-due-to-judicially-created-patent-law/">Global U.S. Patent Standing Falls Due to Judicially-Created Patent Law</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/14/global-us-patent-standing-falls-due-to-judicially-created-patent-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fact-Checking the Assertions of the Parties in Hyatt v. Squires</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/12/fact-checking-the-assertions-of-the-parties-in-hyatt-v-squires/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/12/fact-checking-the-assertions-of-the-parties-in-hyatt-v-squires/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ron Katznelson, PhD]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2026 19:15:10 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Contributors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inventors Information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Contributor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=202542</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Gilbert Hyatt is a prolific independent inventor known for his large number of patent applications held up for decades at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the courts. In its decisions in Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, 998 F. 3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (Hyatt I) and Hyatt v. Stewart, 148 F. 4th 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (Hyatt II), the Federal Circuit held that he forfeited his patent rights under the prosecution laches doctrine</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/12/fact-checking-the-assertions-of-the-parties-in-hyatt-v-squires/">Fact-Checking the Assertions of the Parties in &lt;i&gt;Hyatt v. Squires&lt;/i&gt;</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/12/fact-checking-the-assertions-of-the-parties-in-hyatt-v-squires/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Other Barks &#038; Bites for Friday, June 12: Republican Lawmakers Urge USITC to Block TSMC Chips; Bipartisan Bill Targets Digital Platform Abuses; and Most EU Consumers Would Pay More for Better Design</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/12/bites-barks-bipartisan-bill-targets-digital-platform-abuses-and-most-eu-consumers-would-pay-more-for-better-design/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/12/bites-barks-bipartisan-bill-targets-digital-platform-abuses-and-most-eu-consumers-would-pay-more-for-better-design/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steve Brachmann]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2026 18:04:55 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Barks and Bites]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Other Barks and Bites]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=202536</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>This week in Other Barks &#038; Bites: Senators Chuck Grassley and Amy Klobuchar introduced the American Innovation and Choice Online Act into Congress; the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office waived the petition fee for the Streamlined Claim Set pilot program; the Council for Innovation Promotion publishes a study on the impacts of intellectual property rights in cultivating technology ecosystems;</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/12/bites-barks-bipartisan-bill-targets-digital-platform-abuses-and-most-eu-consumers-would-pay-more-for-better-design/">Other Barks &#038; Bites for Friday, June 12: Republican Lawmakers Urge USITC to Block TSMC Chips; Bipartisan Bill Targets Digital Platform Abuses; and Most EU Consumers Would Pay More for Better Design</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/12/bites-barks-bipartisan-bill-targets-digital-platform-abuses-and-most-eu-consumers-would-pay-more-for-better-design/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Witnessing the Miracle of Innovation in Real Time</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/11/witnessing-the-miracle-of-innovation-in-real-time/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/11/witnessing-the-miracle-of-innovation-in-real-time/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Allen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2026 18:19:57 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Capitol Hill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Contributors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bayh-Dole Coalition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Faces of Innovation Awards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Contributor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=202487</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Many of us have spent our careers defending and promoting our patent system and related policies like the Bayh-Dole Act, which injected the authorities and incentives of patent ownership into the federal R&#038;D system so that resulting discoveries would no longer waste away on the shelves, benefitting no one. While we usually focus on statistics, legal analysis and case studies, sometimes the impact of what we’re doing hits you square in the face. Last week, I was fortunate enough to have that happen and it’s an experience I’ll never forget.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/11/witnessing-the-miracle-of-innovation-in-real-time/">Witnessing the Miracle of Innovation in Real Time</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/11/witnessing-the-miracle-of-innovation-in-real-time/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>CAFC Affirms Dismissal of Infringement Case Against Bank of America</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/11/cafc-affirms-dismissal-infringement-case-against-bank-of-america/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/11/cafc-affirms-dismissal-infringement-case-against-bank-of-america/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eileen McDermott]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2026 16:15:52 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[District Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=202516</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday affirmed a district court’s order dismissing a claim of patent infringement brought by Dynapass against Bank of America. Chief Judge Moore authored the opinion. Dynapass claimed Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A. (BOA) infringed its U.S. Patent No. 6,993,658, which covers a user authentication system in which user tokens are supplied through communication devices. Dynapass claimed Bank of America’s two-factor authentication feature of BOA’s Mobile Banking Application infringed claims 1–7 of the ’658 patent and sued Bank of America in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/11/cafc-affirms-dismissal-infringement-case-against-bank-of-america/">CAFC Affirms Dismissal of Infringement Case Against Bank of America</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/11/cafc-affirms-dismissal-infringement-case-against-bank-of-america/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prohibiting Adversarial Patents Act Would Limit Patent Rights of National Security-Designated Entities</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/11/prohibiting-adversarial-patents-act-would-limit-patent-rights-of-national-security-designated-entities/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/11/prohibiting-adversarial-patents-act-would-limit-patent-rights-of-national-security-designated-entities/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rose Esfandiari]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2026 14:15:58 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Capitol Hill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prohibiting Adversarial Patents Act]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=202512</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>U.S. House Republicans recently introduced legislation that would prohibit entities on federal national security watchlists from receiving or enforcing U.S. patents. The Council for Innovation Promotion (C4IP) responded with a statement urging Congress to reconsider the bill. The legislation would prohibit the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) from issuing patents to individuals or entities identified as Chinese military-affiliated organizations.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/11/prohibiting-adversarial-patents-act-would-limit-patent-rights-of-national-security-designated-entities/">Prohibiting Adversarial Patents Act Would Limit Patent Rights of National Security-Designated Entities</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/11/prohibiting-adversarial-patents-act-would-limit-patent-rights-of-national-security-designated-entities/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>IPWatchdog Patent Masters Urge Stakeholders to Unite for Change in the Next Cycle of U.S. Patent Reform</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/10/patent-masters-urge-stakeholders-to-unite-for-change-in-the-next-cycle-of-u-s-patent-reform/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/10/patent-masters-urge-stakeholders-to-unite-for-change-in-the-next-cycle-of-u-s-patent-reform/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eileen McDermott]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2026 18:55:59 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Artificial Intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capitol Hill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Patent Masters 2026]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Pauline Newman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Randall Rader]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=202444</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>IPWatchdog’s 2026 Patent Masters Program kicked off Monday with discussions on the state of the international patent landscape and the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in creating efficiency gains in patent prosecution and portfolio building, before moving into conversations on Tuesday and Wednesday about monetization, ex parte appeal strategies and how to shape the future of the U.S patent system, among other topics.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/10/patent-masters-urge-stakeholders-to-unite-for-change-in-the-next-cycle-of-u-s-patent-reform/">IPWatchdog Patent Masters Urge Stakeholders to Unite for Change in the Next Cycle of U.S. Patent Reform</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/10/patent-masters-urge-stakeholders-to-unite-for-change-in-the-next-cycle-of-u-s-patent-reform/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Register of Copyrights Is Wrong About Cox v. Sony</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/10/the-register-of-copyrights-is-wrong-about-cox-v-sony/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/10/the-register-of-copyrights-is-wrong-about-cox-v-sony/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Josh Bercu]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2026 12:15:23 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Contributors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capitol Hill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyrights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cox v. Sony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Contributor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ISPs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[op-ed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Copyright Office]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=202430</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At a recent Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing, Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter noted that Congress may need to overturn this year’s unanimous decision in the Cox v. Sony Supreme Court case or create a new “site blocking” regime to force internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to certain internet sites. The only problem? To put it bluntly, she is wrong.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/10/the-register-of-copyrights-is-wrong-about-cox-v-sony/">The Register of Copyrights Is Wrong About &lt;i&gt;Cox v. Sony&lt;/i&gt;</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/10/the-register-of-copyrights-is-wrong-about-cox-v-sony/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Arbitrator Rules USPTO Violated Federal Labor Law by Eliminating Non-Patents Employee Telework Without Bargaining</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/10/arbitrator-rules-uspto-violated-federal-labor-law-by-eliminating-non-patents-employee-telework-without-bargaining/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/10/arbitrator-rules-uspto-violated-federal-labor-law-by-eliminating-non-patents-employee-telework-without-bargaining/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rose Esfandiari]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2026 11:15:37 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Trial and Appeal Board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[popa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PTAB]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=202472</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>On Monday, an arbitrator issued an order finding that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) violated federal labor law when it eliminated routine and remote telework for non-Patents bargaining unit employees represented by the Patent Office Professional Association (POPA) without first engaging in impact and implementation bargaining.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/10/arbitrator-rules-uspto-violated-federal-labor-law-by-eliminating-non-patents-employee-telework-without-bargaining/">Arbitrator Rules USPTO Violated Federal Labor Law by Eliminating Non-Patents Employee Telework Without Bargaining</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/10/arbitrator-rules-uspto-violated-federal-labor-law-by-eliminating-non-patents-employee-telework-without-bargaining/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB Findings of Unpatentability for Google’s ‘Hotword’ Patents</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/09/federal-circuit-reverses-ptab-findings-of-unpatentability-for-googles-hotword-patents/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/09/federal-circuit-reverses-ptab-findings-of-unpatentability-for-googles-hotword-patents/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eileen McDermott]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 21:22:47 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inter partes review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Trial and Appeal Board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patentability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patentability requirements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PTAB]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=202426</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday reversed and remanded two Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions that had found Google’s patents for improvements to “hotword” detection unpatentable. The opinion was authored by CAFC Chief Judge Moore. “Hotwords” are phrases like “Hey Siri” and “OK Computer” that are used to activate voice assistants. Google’s U.S. patents 10,134,398 and 10,593,330 are directed to improvements that “address the problem of triggering multiple devices with a single hotword” by suppressing the reaction in other devices while the intended device reacts.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/09/federal-circuit-reverses-ptab-findings-of-unpatentability-for-googles-hotword-patents/">Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB Findings of Unpatentability for Google’s ‘Hotword’ Patents</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/09/federal-circuit-reverses-ptab-findings-of-unpatentability-for-googles-hotword-patents/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The AI Arms Race Runs Through the Patent System &#124; IPWatchdog Unleashed</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/09/ai-arms-race-patent-system/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/09/ai-arms-race-patent-system/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 18:15:54 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Artificial Intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interviews & Conversations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Unleashed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Podcasts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innovation policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip theft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ipwatchdog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent eligibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent eligible]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patentability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patentability requirements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patentable subject matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rama Elluru]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 101]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=202396</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I spoke with Rama Elluru, a former PTAB Judge turned national security policy advisor. We explore the accelerating intersection of AI, patent law, and national competitiveness, as well as the hard questions policymakers will soon face around AI-assisted inventorship, patent eligibility, drug discovery, scientific research, and whether existing legal frameworks can keep pace with technologies that are advancing far faster than Congress, agencies, and courts typically move. We also address the broader national security implications of intellectual property policy, AI-enabled fraud, workforce disruption, the need for guardrails and meaningful penalties for malicious uses of AI, and why IP must be understood as a core pillar of economic and national security strategy.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/09/ai-arms-race-patent-system/">The AI Arms Race Runs Through the Patent System | &lt;i&gt;IPWatchdog Unleashed&lt;/i&gt;</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/09/ai-arms-race-patent-system/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
