The USPTO has issued several recent Federal Register Notices this calendar year. The latest, entitled Guidance on Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools in Practice Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, 89 FR 25609 (April 11, 2024) (the “Guidance”) [1] comes on the heels of the Final Rule: Signature Requirements Related to Acceptance of Electronic Signatures for Patent Correspondence, 89 FR 20321 (March 22, 2024), Resources for Examining Means-Plus-Function and Step-Plus-Function Claim Limitations, 89 FR 19817 (March 20, 2024), Proposed Rule: Practice and Procedures in Trial Proceedings under the America Invents Act before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 89 FR 15531 (March 4, 2024), Updated Guidance for Making a Proper Determination of Obviousness, 89 FR 14449 (February 27, 2024) and the Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions, 89 Fed. Reg. 10043 (February 13, 2024).Given the enormous interest in generative AI models, this most recent USPTO Guidance recognizes that practitioners are likely to use AI-based tools to prepare various documents, including patent and trademark applications, and other filings submitted to PTAB, TTAB, etc. The Guidance is also responsive to the Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence, issued on October 30, 2023. The USPTO notes that “patent examiners are performing AI-enabled prior art searches using features like More Like This Document (MLTD)[2] and Similarity Search in the Office’s Patents End-to-End (PE2E) Search tool.”[3]As is now well known, some AI models may be susceptible to “hallucinations,” resulting in content purportedly from, and references to, non-existe

Circuit, … notice of election to proceed by civil action in district court, and … request for extension of time for filing a notice of appeal or commencing a civil action” to “be filed with the Director of the USPTO by email”).Signature Requirements Related to Acceptance of Electronic Signatures for Patent Correspondence, 89 FR 20321 (March 22, 2024) (“[U]pdat[ing] the signature rule” in patent cases “to provide for the broader permissibility of electronic signatures using third-party document-signing software, such as DocuSign® and Acrobat® Sign, and more closely align signature requirements with the rules of practice in trademark cases.”).Interim RulesThere are no new interim rules.Proposed RulesSetting and Adjusting Trademark Fees During Fiscal Year 2025, 89 FR 20897 (March 26, 2024) (providing notice of proposed adjustments to various trademark fees).Motion To Amend Practice and Procedures in Trial Proceedings Under the America Invents Act Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 89 FR 15531 (March 4, 2024) (proposing to make permanent certain provisions of the Office's motion to amend pilot program (MTA pilot program) and to clarify the rules that apply the preponderance of the evidence standard and allocate burdens of persuasion in connection with motions to amend (MTAs).).Proposed LegislationThere is no new proposed legislation.PTAB DecisionsNew Precedential PTAB DecisionsThere are no new informative PTAB decisions.New Informative PTAB DecisionsThere are no new informative PTAB decisions.Director Review DecisionsSynAffix B.V. v. Hangzhou DAC Biotech Co., Ltd., IPR2022-01531Decision subject to Director Review – Paper 17 (August 22, 2023) [Institution Decision denying institution]Order delegating Director Review to a Delegated Rehearing Panel – Paper 19 (November 16, 2023) [ordering review by an independent Delegated Rehearing Panel to “review the Decision and determine whether the record demonstrates that the Decision misapprehended or overlooked any issue raised in the Director Review

On March 4, 2024, the US Patent & Trademark Office published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking to revise its Motion to Amend (MTA) pilot program practice in connection with certain America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings. 89 Fed. Reg. 15531 (Mar. 4, 2024). The PTO set a May 3, 2024, deadline for stakeholders to submit written comments in response to the proposed rules.The MTA pilot program has evolved since its inception nearly five years ago and has been extended to September 16, 2024. The proposal seeks to make permanent certain provisions of the pilot program in response to the PTO’s May 2023 request for comments. The rules would apply to the existing consolidated set of rules relating to trial practice for inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR) and derivation proceedings in trial proceedings under the AIA.Under the existing MTA pilot program, patent claims challenged during an AIA trial proceeding provide the patent owner with two options when proposing substitute claims in response to a petitioner’s opposition. The first option gives the patent owner the ability to file an MTA so that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board can issue preliminary non-binding guidance regarding the likelihood of an invalidation decision. The PTO

f Patent and Trademark Resource Centers (PTRCs) at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). PTRCs are part of a national network of public, state, and academic libraries designated by the USPTO to offer trademark and patent assistance to the public. Currently, four HBCU libraries have been designated as PTRCs. This month, Director Vidal issued letters to all HBCUs inviting each institution to consider becoming PTRCs to assist their local innovators.Final RulesThere are no new final rules.Interim RulesThere are no new interim rules.Proposed RulesExpanding Opportunities To Appear Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 89 Fed. Reg. 13017 (Feb. 21, 2014) (written comments due by May 21, 2024) [proposing to amend the rules of practice in AIA proceedings to expand the participation of non-registered practitioners who are recognized pro hac vice]Motion To Amend Practice and Procedures in Trial Proceedings Under the America Invents Act Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 89 Fed. Reg. 15531 (March 4, 2024) (written comments due by May 3, 2024) [proposing to amend the rules governing amendment practice in AIA proceedings to make permanent certain provisions of the Office’s motion to amend pilot program (MTA pilot program) and to revise the rules that allocate burdens of persuasion in connection with motions to amend (MTAs).]PTAB DecisionsNew Precedential PTAB DecisionsThere are no new precedential PTAB decisions.New Informative PTAB DecisionsThere are no new informative PTAB decisions.New Director Review DecisionsDK Crown Holdings Inc. v. Diogenes Limited, IPR2023-00268 Decision subject to Director Review – Paper 9 (August 11, 2023) [Institution Decision denying institution]Order delegating Director Review to a Delegated Rehearing Panel – Paper 11 (November 7, 2023) [ordering review by an independent Delegated Rehearing Panel, selected from a pool of senior judges excluding those who issued the reviewed decision, to “review the fact-intensive issues presented in this case ... and to