Deepak Malhotra, JD, BSEE
Inventor and US Patent Attorney
Are you looking for a partner to help protect your ideas?
Let me introduce myself. I am Deepak Malhotra. I have over 20 years experience in patent preparation and prosecution, and have successfully prosecuted hundreds of patent applications to allowance. I have worked on large portfolios for many Fortune 500 companies. Importantly, I am dedicated to strong customer service. That’s not something you experience much in the legal world – but I believe you deserve timeliness as well as quality.
(By continuing, you agree that you have read, understood, and agree to this Disclaimer and Privacy Policy.)
Software Patent Lawyer, Electronics Patent Attorney
Deepak Malhotra, JD, BSEE has worked extensively with various technologies including software, RF communications, sensors, smart cards, ESD protection, tape drivers, servo systems, printers, static memory cells, dynamic memory cells, database, publishing systems, virtual reality, wafer production methods, wafer polishing, antenna diversity systems, RF collision arbitration systems, marketing systems, electron multipliers, microwave electronics, digital clock recovery loops, secure network authentication systems, user interfaces, and more. Malhotra Law Firm, PLLC was a minority certified patent law firm, certified by the Northwest Mountain Minority Supplier Development Council.
Malhotra Law Firm, PLLC has experience in:
- Protecting electrical, electronics, and mechanical inventions
- Assisting venture-capital funded start ups & Fortune 500 companies
- Helping foreign companies secure intellectual property protection in the U.S.
- Protecting software inventions with software patents
- International protection of inventions
Patents
In the language of the statute, any person who “invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvements thereof, may obtain a patent,” subject to the conditions and requirements of the law. These classes of subject matter taken together include practically everything made by man and the processes for making them.
Trademarks
The primary function of a trademark is to indicate origin. However, trademarks also serve to guarantee the quality of the goods or services and, through advertising, serve to create and maintain demand. Rights in a trademark are acquired by use or applying for a federal trademark registration before use.
Business Method Patent Considerations
Attitudes towards business method patents have swung back and forth like a pendulum but recently the Supreme Court has refused to deem business methods patent ineligible. Business methods are generally eligible for patent protection if they pass a “Mayo/Alice” test. The first part of the test is to determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea, a law of nature or a natural phenomenon (i.e., a judicial exception). If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the second part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Many inventions that are thought to be business method inventions are really what I consider to be software inventions.
Software Patents
Like it or not, software patents are here to stay! Instead of hoping that they go away, your best defense against future potential infringement threats by others is to have an arsenal of your own. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a case known as Alice v. CLS, held that using a computer to automate a well known financial method is an unpatentable abstract idea. So what types of software inventions are patent-eligible?
How to Protect Phone Apps
Are you a smart phone app developer? If so, you will want to know what forms of intellectual property are available for protecting smart phone apps.
Provisional Patent Applications
The United States has a form of patent application called a Provisional Patent Application. Some people feel that these are an easy and inexpensive way to obtain a filing date and some patent rights, but they are usually unaware of the risks and downside.
Important Changes to U.S. Patent Law: America Invents Act (AIA)
The United States switched from a First-to-Invent system to a First-to-File system. That makes it important to file patent applications sooner rather than later.
Conducting A Patent Novelty Search
A thorough patent search is an enormous undertaking. However, you can start with a novelty search that covers the most likely languages and places.
The History of Software Patents Blog
IOENGINE, LLC v INGENICO INC., FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2024
IOENGINE, LLC appealed decisions of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Office’s Patent Trial and Appeals Board that found unpatentable certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,539,047; 9,059,969; and 9,774,703. The patents relate to a tunneling client access point (TCAP) that is a “highly secure, portable, power efficient storage and…
USC IP PARTNERSHIP V META , FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2023 (SOFTWARE PATENTS)
USC brought suit for infringement against Facebook, Inc. (now Meta Platforms, Inc.), asserting that its “News Feed” feature infringes claims 1–17 of U.S. Patent No. 8,645,300. The software patent relates to a search engine software method for predicting which webpages to recommend to a web visitor based on inferences of…
TRINITY INFO MEDIA, LLC V. COVALENT, INC., FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2023 (SOFTWARE PATENTS)
Trinity Info Media, LLC sued Covalent, Inc. for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,087,321 and 10,936,685 relating to methods and systems for connecting users based on their answers to polling questions. U.S. Patent No. 9,087,321 teaches that its claimed invention is “directed to a poll-based networking system that connects users…
HANTZ SOFTWARE, LLC, V SAGE INTACCT, INC., FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2023 (SOFTWARE PATENTS)
Any ineligibility judgment should apply to only claims asserted in a complaint if held patent-ineligible after a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Hantz sued Sage alleging that Sage infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 8,055,559 and 8,055,560. Sage moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a…
HAWK TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, LLC, V CASTLE RETAIL, LLC, FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2023 (SOFTWARE PATENTS)
A multi-format digital video product system capable of maintaining full-bandwidth resolution while providing professional quality editing and manipulation of images, which is capable of conserving bandwidth while preserving data is not patent-eligible. Appellant Hawk Technology Systems, LLC sued Appellee Castle Retail, LLC in the Western District of Tennessee for patent…
Latest News
The NHK-Fintiv Saga Continues: USPTO and Amicus Defend Discretionary Denials
by Dennis Crouch
The Federal Circuit is poised to address a significant administrative law question in Apple v. Vidal regarding whether the USPTO's NHK-Fintiv framework for discretionary IPR denials required notice-and-comment rulemaking under the APA. The case comes after the Federal Circuit's 2023 decision finding the procedural challenge reviewable while affirming dismissal of substantive challenges to the framework. Apple Inc. v. Vidal, 63 F.4th 1 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The case takes on added significance given Director Vidal's recent resignation announcement. Her likely Trump appointee replacement may return to former Director Iancu's more aggressive approach to discretionary denials.
Under the AIA, the USPTO director has discretion to deny IPR petitions, even in cases where the case otherwise meets the statutory requirements for an inter partes review. The Director has delegated authority to the PTAB to decide these issues, including discretionary denials. The NHK-Fintiv framework emerged through two precedential PTAB decisions that guide discretionary denials of IPR petitions when parallel district court litigation is pending. In NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2018), the Board first articulated that the advanced state of parallel district court proceedings could justify denying institution.
Safe Harbor at a Crossroads: Examining Regulatory Development Shield of 271(e)(1) in Edwards v. Meril
by Dennis Crouch
The Federal Circuit's divided ruling in Edwards Lifesciences Corp. v. Meril Life Sciences is now before the U.S. Supreme Court -- focusing on the scope of the Hatch-Waxman Act's safe harbor provision. At issue is whether 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1)'s regulatory development shield extends to activities conducted for both regulatory and commercial purposes. The statutory text excuses certain acts that would otherwise be considered patent infringement if conducted "solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a Federal law which regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs or veterinary biological products." While Congress intended to ensure competitors could efficiently prepare for post-patent market entry through necessary regulatory compliance work, an expansive reading arguably erodes patent rights by immunizing activities far beyond pure regulatory preparation. The safe harbor thus sits with the uncomfortable tension of promoting timely competition and protecting innovation incentives.
The case is currently proceeding through the Supreme Court's certiorari process, with Edwards having filed its petition in October 2024. As is common in Supreme Court practice, respondent Meril waived its right to respond to the petition, and the case has been distributed for the Justices' conference on December 6, 2024, where they will consider whether to grant review.
The Team-Based Reality of Modern Innovation: Average Patent Now Lists More Than Three Inventors
by Dennis Crouch
New data from the USPTO shows that the amazing transformation in patent inventorship continues: the average number of inventors per utility patent has reached 3.2 in 2024, nearly double the 1.7 inventors per patent seen in 1976. This steady rise in team-based inventing reflects fundamental changes in how innovation occurs and how the patent system operates.
To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.
While one of only three Electrical Engineer attorneys at his previous firm, the firm was ranked #2 in the U.S. for quality of Electrical Patents by PatentRatings, LLC. Deepak Malhotra has developed relationships with litigators and has assisted clients with aggressive enforcement of intellectual property. Software patents, business method patents, electrical patents, and mechanical patents are his specialties.
Deepak Malhotra Is Not Just A Patent Attorney,
He Is An Inventor Too, With Two U.S. Patents In His Name.