<?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>Tue, 30 Jun 2026 14:18:58 +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>Patent Monetization Reality Check: Can Your Patent Portfolio Survive Due Diligence? &#124; IPWatchdog Unleashed</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/30/patent-monetization-portfolio-survive-due-diligence/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/30/patent-monetization-portfolio-survive-due-diligence/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2026 14:18:57 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Unleashed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Podcasts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporate patent strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dean Geibel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[design patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hilco Global]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innovation strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP monetization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ip Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ipwatchdog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Karl Maersch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[licensing strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[market intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monetization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent assets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent due diligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent landscape]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Licensing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent litigation readiness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent maintenance fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Masters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent monetization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent owners]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent portfolio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent portfolio diligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent portfolio management]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Portfolio Valuation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent prosecution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent pruning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent valuation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent value]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[picture claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Samtec]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=203086</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Patent monetization is often discussed as if the hard part begins when a patent owner makes the decision to license, sell, finance, or enforce its patent assets. That is a mistake and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the difficulties and complexities of patent monetization. By the time a patent owner is sitting across the table from a potential licensee, buyer, lender, litigation funder, or accused infringer, much of the outcome has already been fully determined. The real work begins years earlier in preparation for monetization.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/30/patent-monetization-portfolio-survive-due-diligence/">Patent Monetization Reality Check: Can Your Patent Portfolio Survive Due Diligence? | &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/2026/06/30/patent-monetization-portfolio-survive-due-diligence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>SCOTUS Denies Hyatt Petition on Prosecution Laches, Among Other Patent Denials</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/29/scotus-denies-hyatt-petition-on-prosecution-laches-among-other-patent-denials/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/29/scotus-denies-hyatt-petition-on-prosecution-laches-among-other-patent-denials/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eileen McDermott]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 18:15:18 +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[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent eligibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prosecution laches]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=203079</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>On the same day it granted a trademark petition, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in a number of patent cases as its term nears an end, including the closely-watched case of Hyatt v. Squires, which challenged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) approach to the doctrine of prosecution laches. In addition to the Hyatt case, the Court also denied cert today in Finesse Wireless LLC v. AT&#038;T Mobility LLC, et. al.; Polar Electro Oy v. Firstbeat Technologies Oy; and Ortiz &#038; Assoc. Consulting, LLC v. Vizio, Inc.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/29/scotus-denies-hyatt-petition-on-prosecution-laches-among-other-patent-denials/">SCOTUS Denies Hyatt Petition on Prosecution Laches, Among Other Patent Denials</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/29/scotus-denies-hyatt-petition-on-prosecution-laches-among-other-patent-denials/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>SCOTUS Grants Cert Petition on Trademark Strength Inquiry Over SG Brief Urging Denial</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/29/scotus-grants-cert-petition-on-trademark-strength-inquiry-over-sg-brief-urging-denial/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/29/scotus-grants-cert-petition-on-trademark-strength-inquiry-over-sg-brief-urging-denial/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steve Brachmann]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 16:15:53 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Circuit Courts of Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PepsiCo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[petition for writ of certiorari]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=203094</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Today, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari filed by nitro cold brew coffee company RiseandShine Corporation, doing business as RISE Brewing, challenging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s application of the likelihood of confusion test in RiseandShine’s trademark infringement case against PepsiCo’s “Mtn DEW Rise Energy” energy drinks. Going against the U.S. Solicitor General’s calls to deny cert even though the Second Circuit erred in treating a trademark’s inherent strength as a question of law, the Supreme Court will answer whether this sub-factor of the consumer confusion analysis presents questions of fact that should be submitted to a jury.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/29/scotus-grants-cert-petition-on-trademark-strength-inquiry-over-sg-brief-urging-denial/">SCOTUS Grants Cert Petition on Trademark Strength Inquiry Over SG Brief Urging Denial</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/29/scotus-grants-cert-petition-on-trademark-strength-inquiry-over-sg-brief-urging-denial/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Be Prepared to Navigate the Law of Website Images</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/29/be-prepared-navigate-law-website-images/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/29/be-prepared-navigate-law-website-images/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anton J. Hopen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 13:15:46 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Contributors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Licensing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyrights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[damages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[demand letters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DMCA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Contributor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[website images]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=203060</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Stock photos. Blog thumbnails. Social media posts. Hero images. The image that makes a website look finished is often the same image that triggers a copyright demand letter. The facts usually are ordinary, not dramatic. A business hires a web designer or marketing contractor. The contractor pulls an image from someplace online, uses it on a site or post, and disappears. Months later, the owner receives a letter attaching a Visual Arts, or VA, registration and threatening statutory damages.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/29/be-prepared-navigate-law-website-images/">Be Prepared to Navigate the Law of Website Images</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/29/be-prepared-navigate-law-website-images/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>ArentFox Schiff LLP is Seeking a Patent Agent / Patent Attorney – Biotechnology</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/29/arentfox-schiff-llp-is-seeking-a-patent-agent-patent-attorney-biotechnology/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[JobOrtunities Help Wanted]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2026 09:15:02 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[JobOrtunities Job Board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ArentFox Schiff LLP]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=203002</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>ArentFox Schiff LLP is seeking a patent agent or patent attorney with a minimum of five years of experience preparing and prosecuting patent applications in the biotechnology field at a law firm. The ideal candidate will have substantial experience drafting patent applications directed to in vitro diagnostic assays, along with familiarity in one or more of the following areas: immunoassays, CRISPR-based assays, nucleic acid sequencing and quantification, and related probes, kits, and reagents. Experience with computational biology is a plus but is not required. This position will be based in the firm's San Francisco or New York office. Ideal candidates will hold an M.S. or Ph.D. in molecular biology or a closely related discipline. Candidates who do not hold a graduate degree, but who possess a B.S. in a relevant field combined with five or more years of post-graduate laboratory or industry experience will also be considered.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/29/arentfox-schiff-llp-is-seeking-a-patent-agent-patent-attorney-biotechnology/">ArentFox Schiff LLP is Seeking a Patent Agent / Patent Attorney – Biotechnology</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Squires Denies Apple IPR Under Revvo for Inconsistent Position on Limiting Preambles</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/28/squires-denies-apple-ipr-revvo/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/28/squires-denies-apple-ipr-revvo/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steve Brachmann]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2026 17:15:54 +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[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Director review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inter partes review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Squires]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Trial and Appeal Board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[post grant procedures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PTAB]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=203043</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Last week, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires issued a decision denying institution of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings petitioned by tech giant Apple to challenge patent rights owned by WeCrevention, the intellectual property holding subsidiary of Taiwanese semiconductor developer Etron Technology. Director Squires’ ruling continues the ongoing crackdown against gamesmanship at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) by petitioners pursuing positions inconsistent with district court litigation to increase their odds of invalidating competitor patent rights.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/28/squires-denies-apple-ipr-revvo/">Squires Denies Apple IPR Under &lt;i&gt;Revvo&lt;/i&gt; for Inconsistent Position on Limiting Preambles</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/28/squires-denies-apple-ipr-revvo/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Other Barks &#038; Bites for Friday, June 26: EPO Study Shows Courts Moving from Defining to Applying FRAND; FTC Files Amicus in J&#038;J Stelara Antitrust Case; and EUIPO Working Group Endorses IP-Backed Finance Roadmap</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/26/bites-barks-ftc-files-amicus-in-jj-euipo-working-group-endorses-ip-backed-finan/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/26/bites-barks-ftc-files-amicus-in-jj-euipo-working-group-endorses-ip-backed-finan/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eileen McDermott]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2026 19:12:37 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=203022</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>This week in Other Barks &#038; Bites: public interest groups voice their opposition to the PRO CODES Act for allowing private ownership of code standards incorporated by reference into public law; the Eleventh Circuit reverses the Middle District of Florida for failing to consider evidence of non-generic use in a cheerleading competition trademark case; the Federal Trade Commission files an amicus brief arguing that no specific intent is required to show that Johnson &#038; Johnson’s patent acquisitions were anticompetitive; the European Patent Office publishes a study analyzing dozens of landmark cases on licensing rate determinations for standards-essential patents; and more.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/26/bites-barks-ftc-files-amicus-in-jj-euipo-working-group-endorses-ip-backed-finan/">Other Barks &#038; Bites for Friday, June 26: EPO Study Shows Courts Moving from Defining to Applying FRAND; FTC Files Amicus in J&#038;J Stelara Antitrust Case; and EUIPO Working Group Endorses IP-Backed Finance Roadmap</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/26/bites-barks-ftc-files-amicus-in-jj-euipo-working-group-endorses-ip-backed-finan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Wenderoth Lind &#038; Ponack LLP is Seeking a Biotechnology Patent Prosecution Attorney</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/26/wenderoth-lind-ponack-llp-is-seeking-a-biotechnology-patent-prosecution-attorney/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[JobOrtunities Help Wanted]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2026 09:15:28 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[JobOrtunities Job Board]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=202991</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Wenderoth, Lind &#038; Ponack, LLP, an intellectual property law firm in Washington, DC, is seeking an experienced patent attorney to join its thriving Chemical and Biotechnology Patent Prosecution Practice. This position offers the opportunity to work on a wide variety of patent prosecution matters in the biological, biotechnology, chemical, and pharmaceutical fields for sophisticated domestic and international clients. The Biotechnology Patent Prosecution Attorney will focus on preparing, filing, and prosecuting U.S. and international patent applications in biotechnology and related life sciences technologies. The attorney will work closely with experienced colleagues in a collegial and team-oriented environment while maintaining efficient prosecution practices and upholding the firm's standards for quality, responsiveness, and client service. This is a full-time, hybrid role based in Washington, D.C., with flexibility for remote work.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/26/wenderoth-lind-ponack-llp-is-seeking-a-biotechnology-patent-prosecution-attorney/">Wenderoth Lind &#038; Ponack LLP is Seeking a Biotechnology Patent Prosecution Attorney</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Beyond the &#8216;Actual Invention&#8217;: A Closer Look at Canada&#8217;s 2026 Updated Subject Matter Framework Compared with U.S. Practice</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/25/beyond-actual-invention-closer-look-canadas-2026-updated-subject-matter-framework-compared-with-u-s-practice/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/25/beyond-actual-invention-closer-look-canadas-2026-updated-subject-matter-framework-compared-with-u-s-practice/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Shahrzad Esmaili]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2026 20:24:57 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Artificial Intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></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[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canadian Intellectual Property Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Contributor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent eligibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent eligible]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patentable subject matter]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=202903</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) has materially changed how examiners are instructed to apply the law on patentable subject matter. In March 2026, CIPO replaced its November 2020 practice notice on computer-implemented inventions, medical diagnostic methods, and medical uses. The 2026 notice represents an important development for current Canadian prosecution practice.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/25/beyond-actual-invention-closer-look-canadas-2026-updated-subject-matter-framework-compared-with-u-s-practice/">Beyond the &#8216;Actual Invention&#8217;: A Closer Look at Canada&#8217;s 2026 Updated Subject Matter Framework Compared with U.S. Practice</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/25/beyond-actual-invention-closer-look-canadas-2026-updated-subject-matter-framework-compared-with-u-s-practice/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Senate Finance Committee Hears from ITC Nominees</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/25/senate-finance-committee-hears-itc-nominees/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/25/senate-finance-committee-hears-itc-nominees/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eileen McDermott]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2026 18:15:26 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Capitol Hill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Trade Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ITC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peter-Anthony Pappas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Representative Darrell Issa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senate Finance Committee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senator Thom Tillis]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=202974</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The United States Senate Committee on Finance today held a hearing to consider the nominations of five individuals to be Commissioners of the International Trade Commission (ITC). Two of the nominees—Peter-Anthony Pappas (R) and David Foley (R)—have played key roles in IP policy on the Hill over the last several years. Introducing Pappas was Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), under whom Pappas presently serves as   Director of Intellectual Property Policy for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Tillis Chairs the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property (IP).</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/25/senate-finance-committee-hears-itc-nominees/">Senate Finance Committee Hears from ITC Nominees</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/25/senate-finance-committee-hears-itc-nominees/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Squires Vacates-in-Part PTAB Decision Due to Board&#8217;s Failure to Address Jury Verdict in Parallel Litigation</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/25/squires-vacates-part-ptab-decision-due-boards-failure-address-jury-verdict-parallel-litigation/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/25/squires-vacates-part-ptab-decision-due-boards-failure-address-jury-verdict-parallel-litigation/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rose Esfandiari]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2026 17:15:23 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[District Courts]]></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[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[PTAB]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=202984</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>In an order issued earlier this week, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires granted Director Review and partially vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Final Written Decision that found several claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,828,425 unpatentable as obvious. Squires remanded the case after finding that the Board did not explain why its conclusion as to claim 2 differed from the outcome of a parallel district court proceeding on the same claim.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/25/squires-vacates-part-ptab-decision-due-boards-failure-address-jury-verdict-parallel-litigation/">Squires Vacates-in-Part PTAB Decision Due to Board&#8217;s Failure to Address Jury Verdict in Parallel Litigation</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/25/squires-vacates-part-ptab-decision-due-boards-failure-address-jury-verdict-parallel-litigation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>USPTO Clarifies Approach to Double Patenting and Patent Term Adjustment in Continuation Families</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/24/uspto-clarifies-approach-to-double-patenting-and-patent-term-adjustment-in-continuation-families/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/24/uspto-clarifies-approach-to-double-patenting-and-patent-term-adjustment-in-continuation-families/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kevin Greenleaf]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2026 18:00:15 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Contributors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[allergan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[double patenting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Contributor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[In re Cellect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ODP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patentability requirements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reexamination]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=202921</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Recent developments in ex parte Corteva Agriscience LLC (Reexamination Control 90/019,130; Patent 10,947,555 B2) clarify obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) in the context of patent families with multiple continuations and varying patent term adjustments (PTA).... In Corteva, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) distinguished Cellect and extended Allergan by holding that a child patent (here, the ’555 patent) is not unpatentable for ODP if it does not expire later than the original patent in the family, including any PTA awarded to the original patent. Below is a figure from Corteva. </p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/24/uspto-clarifies-approach-to-double-patenting-and-patent-term-adjustment-in-continuation-families/">USPTO Clarifies Approach to Double Patenting and Patent Term Adjustment in Continuation Families</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/24/uspto-clarifies-approach-to-double-patenting-and-patent-term-adjustment-in-continuation-families/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>CAFC Affirms Dismissal of Pro Se Inventor’s Suit Against USPTO For Rejected Wearable Thermal Device Application</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/24/cafc-affirms-dismissal-of-pro-se-inventors-suit-against-uspto-for-rejected-wearable-thermal-device-application/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/24/cafc-affirms-dismissal-of-pro-se-inventors-suit-against-uspto-for-rejected-wearable-thermal-device-application/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rose Esfandiari]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2026 16:15:57 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[District Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></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[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent prosecution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pro se inventor]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=202935</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Sansone v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, affirming the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia’s dismissal of a pro se inventor’s lawsuit and denial of his motion for summary judgment. Stanley Sansone filed U.S. Patent Application No. 16/255,511 on January 23, 2019, seeking a patent for a wearable thermal device, but a patent examiner rejected all claims. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) affirmed the rejection, after which Sansone sought continued examination.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/24/cafc-affirms-dismissal-of-pro-se-inventors-suit-against-uspto-for-rejected-wearable-thermal-device-application/">CAFC Affirms Dismissal of Pro Se Inventor’s Suit Against USPTO For Rejected Wearable Thermal Device Application</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/24/cafc-affirms-dismissal-of-pro-se-inventors-suit-against-uspto-for-rejected-wearable-thermal-device-application/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mormon Stories Podcast Counters LDS Church with Cancellation Claims Against Church’s Mormon Marks</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/24/mormon-stories-podcast-counters-lds-church-with-cancellation-claims-against-churchs-mormon-marks/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/24/mormon-stories-podcast-counters-lds-church-with-cancellation-claims-against-churchs-mormon-marks/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rachel Mount]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2026 13:15:35 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[District Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mormon Church]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mormon Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark cancellation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademarks]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=202887</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>A trademark dispute between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (“the Church”) and the Mormon Stories Podcast (“the Podcast”) has  this week become a broader fight over the Church’s Mormon-related trademark portfolio. The Church’s complaint, filed on April 17, 2026, alleged that the Podcast’s name, branding, and use of Church imagery create a likelihood of confusion regarding whether the Podcast is actually affiliated with the Church. Meanwhile, the Podcast’s answer to the complaint and counterclaim goes further. Rather than merely denying infringement, the Podcast is now seeking cancellation of multiple Mormon-related trademarks owned by the Church..</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/24/mormon-stories-podcast-counters-lds-church-with-cancellation-claims-against-churchs-mormon-marks/">Mormon Stories Podcast Counters LDS Church with Cancellation Claims Against Church’s Mormon Marks</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/24/mormon-stories-podcast-counters-lds-church-with-cancellation-claims-against-churchs-mormon-marks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>SCOTUS Must End Prosecution Laches Before It Becomes a Patent Killing Machine</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/23/scotus-must-end-prosecution-laches-before-becomes-patent-killing-machine/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/23/scotus-must-end-prosecution-laches-before-becomes-patent-killing-machine/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2026 20:15:30 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></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[CAFC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gil Hyatt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hyatt v. Squires]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent prosecution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prosecution laches]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=202769</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court should grant certiorari in Hyatt v. Squires—a case it is scheduled to consider later this week—and finally put an end to prosecution laches in patent law. Not limit it. Not cabin it. Not send the Federal Circuit back to craft yet another multi-factor balancing test that will inevitably metastasize into a litigation weapon. The Supreme Court must end prosecution laches once and for all, period.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/23/scotus-must-end-prosecution-laches-before-becomes-patent-killing-machine/">SCOTUS Must End Prosecution Laches Before It Becomes a Patent Killing Machine</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/06/23/scotus-must-end-prosecution-laches-before-becomes-patent-killing-machine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
