Account

Sign in to access your account and subscription

An Analysis of Kappos v. Hyatt

Although the Supreme Court's decision in <i>Kappos v. Hyatt</i> addressed the Patent Act specifically, the decision may have implications for cases brought in district courts to challenge decisions of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The <i>Kappos</i> decision may also encourage defendants to continue pushing against the "clear and convincing evidence" standard for obviousness challenges based on prior art not considered by the PTO during examination.

22 minute read June 28, 2012 at 09:40 AM
By
John M. Cone and Megan M. O'Laughlin
An Analysis of Kappos v. Hyatt

Gilbert Hyatt appealed the Patent and Trademark Office's rejection of all 117 claims of his patent application titled “Improved Memory Architecture Having a Multiple Buffer Output Arrangement” to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”) under ' 134(a).

This premium content is locked for The Intellectual Property Strategist subscribers only

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN The Intellectual Property Strategist

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

Already have an account? Sign In Now

For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Continue Reading

Most firms are aiming their newest tools at the work they already do — pouring their most powerful technology into running the same tasks a little faster. But when everyone automates the same tasks at once, no one pulls ahead. That reaches the future a little faster while leaving a firm’s largest opportunity untouched — and that opportunity isn’t doing more of the existing work, but transforming how the high-value work gets done.

June 01, 2026

Artificial intelligence is rapidly embedding itself into legal workflows, but much of the conversation treats all use cases as if they carry the same level of risk, even if they do not. The more useful question is not whether AI works, but where it can be safely applied and where it cannot.

June 01, 2026