LINKS: PatentRiff Roundup for June 11, 2025
Featuring news about Accelerated Examination, the CAFC's ruling on equitable estoppel, and Taylor Swift's master recordings
Welcome to the PatentRiff Links Roundup for June 11, 2025. Below you will find news for patents, technology, and intellectual property.
Today's news features the USPTO discontinuing the Accelerated Examination program, the Federal Circuit's ruling on equitable estoppel, and Taylor Swift's ownership of her master recordings.
Here are the links:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the District of Delaware's decision in Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. This ruling allows Fraunhofer to pursue patent infringement claims. The Federal Circuit found that Sirius XM did not prove reliance on Fraunhofer's misleading conduct, remanding the case.
▪ SCOTUS: Pairing RADesign’s Discovery Rule with Jem’s Laches Defense | PATENTLYO.COM | IP
The Supreme Court rescheduled its consideration of the copyright statute of limitations petition in *RADesign v. Michael Grecco* and will consider it alongside *Jem Accessories, Inc. v. Harman International Industries, Inc.*, which involves trademark law. This pairing suggests the Court may be extending its approach to limitations and laches doctrines across intellectual property law. Both cases address when rights holders must act to preserve their claims.
The USPTO will discontinue its Accelerated Examination program for utility patent applications, effective July 10, 2025. This change allows the USPTO to allocate resources to older, unexamined applications, aiming to reduce overall pendency. The Accelerated Examination program will remain available for design applications.
The USPTO will discontinue the Accelerated Examination (AE) program for utility patent applications, effective July 10, 2025. This change aims to reallocate resources and reduce overall patent pendency, as the AE program has seen low usage. Patent professionals should consider using the Track One program for expedited examination of utility applications.
▪ Hatch-Waxman Safe Harbor: Lessons from Recent Court Precedent | IPWATCHDOG.COM | IP
This article provides an overview of the Hatch-Waxman safe harbor under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). It delves into the application of the Common Law Research Exemption. The focus is on the treatment of the Hatch-Waxman safe harbor by the courts over the last ten years.
▪ Stewart Says USPTO Wants Early Validity Challenges, Not Late IPRs | IPWATCHDOG.COM | IP
Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart spoke at the IPBC Global 2025. Stewart discussed efforts to reduce the patent backlog. He also mentioned initiatives for the PTAB and encouraged the use of third-party prior art submissions.
The USPTO is discontinuing the Accelerated Examination (AE) Program for utility patent applications, effective July 10, 2025, due to low usage and resource burdens. Track 1 Prioritized Examination is now the preferred method for expedited utility patent examination. Fee waivers for "special" status based on specific subject matters are also being eliminated, with the exception of the inventor's age or health.
▪ Federal Circuit Reverses on Equitable Estoppel: Fraunhofer v. SiriusXM | BLOG.PATENTRIFF.COM | IP
The Federal Circuit reversed a summary judgment in a patent case, emphasizing the high bar for proving reliance in an equitable estoppel defense. The court found that the accused infringer did not indisputably establish that its business decisions were influenced by the patentee's misleading conduct. This ruling highlights the importance of clear evidence linking business choices to a patent owner's actions or silence for an estoppel defense.
▪ Dancing with abstract ideas patent eligibility in 2025 | PATENTDOCS.ORG | Alice
The article discusses patent eligibility in 2025, focusing on abstract ideas. It provides a URL for accessing the full content. The article's content could not be extracted.
▪ USPTO Hour: Artificial intelligence | USPTO.GOV | Artificial Intelligence
The USPTO will host a special edition USPTO Hour on Tuesday, June 17, from noon to 1 p.m. ET, focusing on AI innovation. Chief Information Officer Jamie Holcombe and other OCIO leaders will discuss how the USPTO is adopting AI to benefit the American people. Patent professionals can register for the webinar and submit questions or ideas to USPTOHour@uspto.gov.
The evolution of subject matter eligibility after the Supreme Court's decisions has resulted in unpredictable outcomes. The situation is reminiscent of the state of obviousness prior to the enactment of § 103 of the patent statute. A recent treatment of the phenomenon in computer science technology patenting can be found in "The Narrow Pathway to Patent Eligibility in the Federal Circuit".
▪ PODCAST: CAFC's Fraunhofer v. SiriusXM and Equittable Estoppel | BLOG.PATENTRIFF.COM | IP
This article discusses the Federal Circuit's 2025 decision in *Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft v. Sirius XM Radio Inc.*, which involves patents and intellectual property. It breaks down the case, including the concept of "equitable estoppel" and its application. The article offers essential takeaways from the case for patent attorneys, owners, and licensees.
YETI sued RTIC, alleging that RTIC's products too closely resembled YETI's designs. The dispute concerned YETI's trade dress. The article focuses on the protection of a product's unique visual identity.
▪ Taylor’s Version: A “Mastermind” in IP Ownership | JDSUPRA.COM | Copyright
Taylor Swift now owns the master recordings of her entire musical catalog after acquiring the copyrights from Shamrock Capital. This move concludes a rights battle and highlights a shift in how creators, investors, and record labels approach intellectual property ownership. The article offers legal implications for artists and advisors, including assignment provisions, re-recording clauses, and marketing strategies.
The article discusses recent court decisions that provide insights into how courts determine the applicability and scope of prosecution history disclaimers. Key takeaways include refraining from correcting examiner statements, keeping comments general, and considering changes to claim language in related applications. These strategies can help avoid clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope.
The Federal Circuit definitively ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has jurisdiction over IPRs. This precedential opinion clarifies the scope of the Board's authority. Patent professionals should take note of this decision.
Disclaimer: This is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or financial advice. To the extent there are any opinions in this article, they are the author’s alone and do not represent the beliefs of his firm or clients. The strategies expressed are purely speculation based on publicly available information. The information expressed is subject to change at any time and should be checked for completeness, accuracy and current applicability. For advice, consult a suitably licensed attorney and/or patent professional.