{"id":430,"date":"2022-05-03T09:00:43","date_gmt":"2022-05-03T09:00:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/wpdemo.archiwp.com\/maxbizz\/?p=430"},"modified":"2022-05-22T21:40:24","modified_gmt":"2022-05-22T21:40:24","slug":"the-future-of-retail-asias-ecosystems","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bethelsystems.com\/?p=430","title":{"rendered":"Intellectual Property"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"feedzy-rss feedzy-0e65c6665ca776f6e4205d072c954d33\"><ul><li  style=\"padding: 15px 0 25px\" class=\"rss_item\"><span class=\"title\"><a href=\"https:\/\/ipwatchdog.com\/2026\/08\/06\/ptab-arp-issues-precedential-decision-on-obviousness-type-double-patenting-asks-cafc-for-more-clarity\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\" noopener\">PTAB ARP Issues Precedential Decision on Obviousness-Type Double Patenting, Asks CAFC for More Clarity<\/a><\/span><div class=\"rss_content\" style=\"\"><small>by <a href=\"\/\/ipwatchdog.com\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"ipwatchdog.com\" >Eileen McDermott<\/a> on August 6, 2026 at 8:39 pm <\/small><p>An Appeals Review Panel (ARP) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office\u2019s (USPTO\u2019s ) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) today issued a decision on sua sponte rehearing reversing a PTAB decision that had itself reversed an examiner\u2019s rejection of claims for obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP). The decision has been designated as precedential and was authored by USPTO Director John A. Squires, PTAB Chief Judge Kalyan Deshpande, and PTAB Acting Deputy Chief Judge Michelle Ankenbrand.\nThe post PTAB ARP Issues Precedential Decision on Obviousness-Type Double Patenting, Asks CAFC for More Clarity appeared first on IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law.<\/p><\/div><\/li><li  style=\"padding: 15px 0 25px\" class=\"rss_item\"><span class=\"title\"><a href=\"https:\/\/ipwatchdog.com\/2026\/08\/06\/uspto-policy-on-discretion-to-deny-ex-parte-reexamination-is-contrary-to-statute-and-precedent\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\" noopener\">USPTO Policy On Discretion to Deny Ex Parte Reexamination Is Contrary to Statute and Precedent<\/a><\/span><div class=\"rss_content\" style=\"\"><small>by <a href=\"\/\/ipwatchdog.com\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"ipwatchdog.com\" >Stephen Schreiner<\/a> on August 6, 2026 at 8:28 pm <\/small><p>As the institution rate of inter partes reviews (IPRs) has plunged under U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires, parties have increasingly turned to ex parte reexaminations (EPRs) to challenge patents. The number of requests for EPRs has skyrocketed. The number of EPR requests more than doubled between 2020 (198 requests) and 2025 (481 requests). See USPTO Reexam Statistics. Based on the number of requests for EPRs (831) assigned a filing date through Q3 of 2026, we are on track to have more than 1,100 requests for EPRs filed in FY2026. See USPTO Operational Statistics.\nThe post USPTO Policy On Discretion to Deny Ex Parte Reexamination Is Contrary to Statute and Precedent appeared first on IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law.<\/p><\/div><\/li><li  style=\"padding: 15px 0 25px\" class=\"rss_item\"><span class=\"title\"><a href=\"https:\/\/ipwatchdog.com\/2026\/08\/06\/issa-introduces-bill-to-name-main-cafc-courtroom-after-judge-pauline-newman\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\" noopener\">Issa Introduces Bill to Name Main CAFC Courtroom after Judge Pauline Newman<\/a><\/span><div class=\"rss_content\" style=\"\"><small>by <a href=\"\/\/ipwatchdog.com\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"ipwatchdog.com\" >Eileen McDermott<\/a> on August 6, 2026 at 4:11 pm <\/small><p>Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet, has introduced a bill to designate courtroom 201 at the Howard T. Markey National Courts Building located at 717 Madison Place NW, Washington, DC, as the \u201cPauline Newman Courtroom\u201d. Room 201 is the main courtroom of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).\nThe post Issa Introduces Bill to Name Main CAFC Courtroom after Judge Pauline Newman appeared first on IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law.<\/p><\/div><\/li><li  style=\"padding: 15px 0 25px\" class=\"rss_item\"><span class=\"title\"><a href=\"https:\/\/ipwatchdog.com\/2026\/08\/05\/patent-enforcement-economy-leaving-inventors-behind-ipwatchdog-unleashed\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\" noopener\">The Patent Enforcement Economy Is Leaving Inventors Behind\/ IPWatchdog Unleashed<\/a><\/span><div class=\"rss_content\" style=\"\"><small>by <a href=\"\/\/ipwatchdog.com\" target=\"_blank\" title=\"ipwatchdog.com\" >Gene Quinn<\/a> on August 5, 2026 at 9:15 pm <\/small><p>The patent system makes a promise that has become increasingly conditional. An inventor discloses an invention to the public and, in return, receives a limited right to exclude. On paper, that bargain remains intact. In the real world, however, a patent owner often discovers that functionally the right is only defensible if the infringement is large enough (but not too large), the damages are high enough (but not too high), the portfolio is deep enough, and somebody is willing to finance years of litigation. Our conversation this week for IPWatchdog Unleashed is about what happens after a patent owner has completed the tedious work of understanding what is actually owned and is now ready to pursue a licensing or enforcement campaign.\nThe post The Patent Enforcement Economy Is Leaving Inventors Behind\/ &lt;i&gt;IPWatchdog Unleashed&lt;\/i&gt; appeared first on IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law.<\/p><\/div><\/li><\/ul> <\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Most firms have set up a war room to triage their immediate response to the crisis. But the lack of visibility around future demand complicates efforts to restart stalled portfolio companies&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1666,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-430","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-intellectual-property"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bethelsystems.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/430","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bethelsystems.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bethelsystems.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bethelsystems.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bethelsystems.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=430"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/bethelsystems.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/430\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2306,"href":"https:\/\/bethelsystems.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/430\/revisions\/2306"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bethelsystems.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/1666"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bethelsystems.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=430"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bethelsystems.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=430"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bethelsystems.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=430"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}