Nathanael Andrews

When does the exercise of patent rights become abuse? A new article from Innovators Network Fellow Michael Carrier and Veracity IP Consulting CEO Earl Nied, "Seven Types of Standard Essential Patents Abuse," explores this question. The piece breaks down seven specific tactics that can undermine FRAND commitments and examines issues like the threat of injunctions, asserting non-essential patents, and venue manipulation, explaining their effects on market competition and innovation.   The article, published in ABA Landslide® Magazine’s September/October 2025 issue, can be found here: https://lnkd.in/esRv9hfk #StandardEssentialPatents #SEP #FRAND #IntellectualProperty #Innovation #TechLaw #TechStandards

15

USPTO, U.S. Department of Justice file 3rd joint pro-injunction brief since June in standards-RELATED but NOT undisputedly standard-ESSENTIAL patent case: next stop WILUS, Inc v. Askey? Radian Memory Systems argued that it was "iced out" from standards development. Netlist claims to own proprietary technologies, though Samsung Electronics has raised FRAND defenses. Collision Communications described its patents as non-essential and Samsung accepted, with only a temporary dispute over amended infringement evidence that was standards-related. The new aspect of Collision is that it's an NPE (unlike Radian and Netlist). Counsel for Collision: Caldwell Cassady & Curry PC’s Brad Caldwell, Chris Stewart, Justin Nemunaitis, Aisha Mahmood Haley, Austin Curry, Bailey Blaies, Hamad Hamad, James Perkins, James Smith, James Yang, Jason Cassady, John Summers, Robert Reich, and Alex G., as well as Andrea Fair, Charles Everingham, and Garrett Parish of Miller Fair Henry. Counsel for Samsung: Quinn Emanuel’s Kevin Hardy, Sean Pak, Victoria Maroulis, Brian Mack, John McKee, Austin Buscher, Brady Huynh, Brice Lynch, Joseph Reed, Nagendra (Nick) Setty, Olga Slobodyanyuk, and Patrick Stafford, as well as GILLAM & SMITH LLP’s Melissa Smith. https://lnkd.in/dsG4n7Ka

4

USPTO PATENT CENTER - Upload Warnings are becoming more frequent. Have you recently noticed Patent Center upload problems getting worse? It seems that the (AI-driven?) gate-keeping software has become less flexible and rejects documents for "containing fonts that are not recognized by the system". No further explanation is provided and such fonts (if that really is the issue) can be very time consuming or impossible to identify. We have found that a simple solution is to convert the specification to .txt and then to paste it back into a .docx document. However there are risks as text can be changed in the process - for example copyright symbols and scientific notations can be converted to "?". So be very careful. We always attach the pdf backup in these cases. IPlegalED.com has trained thousands of patent and trademark paralegals over 20 years and we are the No.1 provider for such training. All students receive unlimited support from experienced attorneys and paralegals, which is why we are used by so many firms and companies. We are proudly AI-free and we do not use chatbots to address your complex and important questions. Find out more at www.iplegaled.com

4

Sharing IP is caring...BUT you need clear guardrails in place to make sure is a win-win Although the number of patent applications has more than tripled (from 1 million to 3.55 million), an estimated 90–95% of those filings will never be commercialized by the companies that created them. When corporations began using patents primarily as swords to kill competitors, they started hoarding ideas rather than using them as tools to spread innovation. Patents are not necessarily the best way to move quickly in the innovation race. Instead, building systems that treat innovation as something meant to be shared (while also creating safeguards to prevent theft and misuse) is key. For startups, this approach not only fosters collaboration but also enables them to monetize their assets while keeping their ideas open and accessible.

5

1 Comment

Ever noticed how most inventors think their IP is solid—until a potential licensee looks at it differently? We’ve seen it happen over and over: patents that look strong on paper but fall short in the market… trademarks that feel catchy but lack distinctiveness… trade secrets that aren’t actually secret. The truth is, your licensing strategy is dependent on the strength of your IP—and it’s hard to be objective when it’s your own creation. That’s why getting outside eyes (legal and market experts) is game-changing. In our latest post, we break down what makes each IP type—patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret—truly valuable in the eyes of a licensee. If you’re preparing to license your invention, this one’s worth a read. 👇 https://lnkd.in/gGezFzdS #Inventors #IPStrategy #Licensing #Innovation #TheInventorPlaybook

4

Today on IPWatchdog, Tim Bright wrote: A panel on day one of IPWatchdog LIVE 2026 didn't mince words: the voluntary patent licensing ecosystem is functionally broken, and the IP community needs to understand why. That was the diagnostic consensus from the panel titled Patent Dealmaking, Monetization & Licensing: An Examination of Capital, Risk, and Deal Flow, moderated by Brian O'Shaughnessy (Dinsmore & Shohl) and featuring Michael Gulliford (Soryn IP Capital), Louis Carbonneau (Tangible IP), and Dan Kesack (WTW Insurance). The post IPWatchdog LIVE Panel Asks Whether Patent Licensing Still Works — The Answer Is Complicated appeared first on IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law .

4

IP licensing officers should be making strategic calls — not buried in repetitive review work. MyEdison.ai takes on the heavy lifting of high-volume invention processing, allowing IP leaders to focus on portfolio optimization, licensing strategy, and long-term value creation. That’s leverage, not replacement. #HumanPlusAI #IPLeadership #StrategicIP #AIEnablement #InnovationLeadership #LegalInnovation

7

https://bit.ly/4qHqqWM The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an important ruling clarifying how courts should analyze functional versus ornamental elements in design patent infringement cases. In Range of Motion Products, LLC v. Armaid Co. Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement, holding that Armaid's therapeutic massage device did not infringe Range of Motion's design patent. The decision reinforces that when functional considerations dominate a product's appearance, design patent protection narrows considerably. Applying the Sport Dimension framework, the court concluded that many prominent features of the patented design, particularly the curved clamshell arms and mushroom-style base, served primarily functional purposes. After excluding these functional elements, the court found the two designs "plainly dissimilar" under the ordinary observer test from Egyptian Goddess. The court emphasized that even where products share conceptual similarities, differences in ornamental details can be dispositive when the claimed design is largely dictated by utility. Courts may consider both intrinsic and extrinsic evidence when patent drawings don't clearly distinguish ornamental from functional features. Chief Judge Kimberly Moore dissented, arguing that the majority improperly resolved factual questions at summary judgment and warned against an increasing trend of deciding design patent cases without jury involvement. This ruling has significant implications for design patent holders in industries where form follows function, demonstrating that functional similarity alone cannot support infringement when ornamental appearances differ. Case: Range of Motion Products, LLC v. Armaid Co. Inc., No. 23-2427 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 2, 2026) #PatentLaw #DesignPatent #IntellectualProperty #FederalCircuit #IPLitigation #IPLaw

4

Discretionary denial at the PTAB continues to evolve and a recent USPTO Director decision adds an important new layer for petitioners, patent owners and PTAB practitioners. In the latest IP Intelligence blog post, Partner Jason Hoffman examines a recent ruling holding that foreign governments are not “persons” eligible to seek IPR and that even minority foreign government ownership can raise real‑party‑in‑interest concerns. #BHBlog #USPTO #PatentLitigation

1

A recent Federal Circuit decision highlights the complexities of evaluating design patent infringement and the shifting focus from whether two designs are “substantially similar” to whether they are “plainly dissimilar.” In a recent patent infringement case, the trial court found that a few seemingly insubstantial differences outweighed what appeared to be obvious overall similarities. The ruling, however, could signal more scrutiny of trial court decisions in design patent cases going forward. In this alert, McCarter lawyer Leah R. McCoy breaks down the decision and shares what product designers and patentees should know about this changing landscape. Read more: https://lnkd.in/eW47b8Ut #PatentInfringement #PatentLaw #IntellectualProperty

5

2 Comments

Point from Quinn's article, "The PTAB was designed to provide finality. That objective is undermined if parties can effectively queue up a second challenge before the first challenge concludes."

1

Until now—including as recently as yesterday—§101 rejections have been driven far more by examiners’ subjective, template-based interpretations than by any official guidelines. Even when applicants overcome all §102 and §103 rejections, examiners still issue §101 rejections on the grounds that the invention ‘resembles things commonly seen’ and therefore lacks technical character. With yesterday’s USPTO alert, the opportunity to make use of SMED has opened. Tech companies may now be able to overcome unreasonable §101 rejections by preparing strong supporting materials demonstrating that their inventions ‘deserve to be patented.’ I believe this measure can offer real benefits to applicants while still respecting the examiner’s sense of professional pride.

8