The storied case of American Axle v. Neapco Holdings has entered a new chapter -- not the final chapter but the plot has thickened considerably. As a recap, Judge Stark, then of the District Court for the District of...more
Patent eligibility is broken.
The only semi-cogent arguments that I have ever heard in support of the status quo is that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issues too many broad, vague patents, and that 35 U.S.C. § 101...more
The patent statute requires that, to be patentable, the subject matter of an invention must be at least one of a process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. It is hard to find examples of things that...more
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) organizes its examining corps into technical centers (TCs). Each TC is dedicated to one or more general technical fields. In some cases, one TC may include two or more unrelated...more
We are all familiar with the rhetorical device of a parade of horribles -- a series of very bad things that could happen if some action is (or isn't) taken. Often, these parades involve a degree of hyperbole. In other...more
The interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 101 has been in flux for over a decade. Please join MBHB Partner Michael Borella, Ph.D., as he discusses its latest iteration, how patent eligibility is currently viewed by the USPTO and...more
There is ample evidence that patent examiner allowance rates vary dramatically from examiner to examiner and art unit to art unit.[1] This has resulted in the general understanding that there are "easy" examiners and "tough"...more
In Liu Cixin's novel The Three Body Problem, the characters create a "computer" from human labor. Millions of people serve as "bits" and hold up flags to indicate whether they represent 0s or 1s. These individuals are given...more
In a ruling that should surprise absolutely nobody, the Federal Circuit rapidly scrapped an appeal of a PTAB decision that affirmed a 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of a business method claim. This is the latest in a series of...more
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) established its Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in September 2012. As mandated by the America Invents Act, the PTAB conducts administrative trials, such as inter partes...more
With further apologies to David Letterman -
Almost two years ago we published Stupid § 101 Tricks, an article discussing some of the annoying, improper, and yet disappointingly common patterns seen in rejection and...more
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is at it again, gaslighting the public in its ongoing crusade against patents. While the EFF does perform some commendable work, mostly in the areas of individual privacy rights, its...more
In an ideal world, patent eligibility would be a simple, clear, and non-controversial inquiry. After all, the purpose of 35 U.S.C. § 101 is to inform the public which types of inventions are eligible for patenting and which...more
Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina has released a new proposal to reform the text of 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Senator's last effort in doing so died on the vine in 2019, purportedly due to stakeholders being too...more
Bad law often gives rise to creative legal arguments. But the application of such creative lawyering is necessarily bounded by ethical rules and notions of fair dealing. Patent eligibility, in its current incarnation, has...more
In an order that is clearly less impactful and damaging than a number of opinions that the Supreme Court has disgorged in the last two weeks, the justices have denied certiorari in American Axle & Mfg. Inc. v. Neapco Holdings...more
7/1/2022
/ CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Denial of Certiorari ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 101 ,
Statutory Interpretation ,
USPTO
There is a theme running through many patent-eligibility disputes that is analogous to baiting-and-switching. One party has claims that recite an invention. The other party characterizes those claims at a high level or...more
Mentone sued Digi for alleged infringement of Mentone's U.S. Patent No. 6,952,413. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware found the claims of the patent to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Mentone...more
CosmoKey asserted U.S. Patent No. 9,246,903 against Duo in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement. The District Court found the patent's claims to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101...more
Two years ago, MyMail and ooVoo went to the mat in the Federal Circuit over claims that the District Court for the Northern District of California found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Patent holder MyMail was able to...more
Diamond v. Diehr, decided by the Supreme Court in 1981, seemed to establish a bedrock principle of statutory construction for patent law. The Court stated that "[t]he 'novelty' of any element or steps in a process, or even...more
Sensormatic asserted U.S. Patents 7,730,534, 7,936,370, 7,954,129, 8,208,019, and 8,610,772 against Wyze in the District of Delaware, alleging infringement. Wyze moved the District Court to dismiss under Rule 12(c), on the...more
When the Supreme Court began poking around into the law of patent eligibility just over a decade ago, the invention topics that it considered under the abstract idea exception were limited to types of financial transactions. ...more
Today, the Supreme Court requested the views of the Solicitor General in its consideration of American Axle's certiorari petition, which asks the Court to reverse the Federal Circuit's decision in American Axle & Mfg. v....more
The Supreme Court's Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l case has been criticized for setting forth a patent eligibility analysis that is unworkably subjective. As a consequence, the validity of particular types of inventions,...more