News & Analysis as of

Amicus Briefs in Support of Sequenom's Petition for Rehearing En Banc: NYIPLA

Earlier this summer, in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the District Court for the Northern District of California granting summary judgment of invalidity of the asserted...more

Guest Post -- On Ariosa and Natural Products

Recently, I had the privilege of speaking at the annual meeting of the American Society of Pharmacognosy in Colorado. Members of this scientific association are dedicated to identifying and isolating natural products from...more

Clinical Trials as Prior Art: PTAB Denies Bass IPR Petition With Only a "Hope" of Efficacy

In the most recent loss for Kyle Bass’ hedge fund in IPR proceedings, the Board denied institution of an IPR based on a petition filed by Coalition for Affordable Drugs V LLC (CFAD) against Biogen MA Inc. IPR2015-01136, Paper...more

Strong Support for Sequenom’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc

In Ariosa Diagnostics Inc. v. Sequenom Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015), a Federal Circuit panel held that Sequenom Inc.’s prenatal diagnosis patent claims patent ineligible subject matter under the two-step test of Mayo...more

Amicus Briefs in Support of Sequenom's Petition for Rehearing En Banc: Professors Lefstin and Menell

Earlier this summer, in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the District Court for the Northern District of California granting summary judgment of invalidity of the asserted...more

Federal Circuit Finds Revolutionary Non-Invasive Fetal DNA Test Method Unpatentable Under Mayo

On June 12, 2015, in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et. al. v. Sequenom, Inc. et. al., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit invalidated claims in U.S. Patent 6,258,540 directed to methods for detecting paternally inherited...more

Supreme Court Issues Decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank

There's an old saying that “bad facts make bad law,” acknowledging that a court's decisions regarding extreme cases can result in law poorly adapted to less extreme cases. The Supreme Court's recent trio of 35 U.S.C. § 101...more

I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)

Ever since the 2010 Supreme Court opinion in Bilski v. Kappos was handed down, the debate over the scope of patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been at times stimulating, complex, comical, and frustrating. Now it...more

Thoughts on Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l

There's an old saying that "bad facts make bad law," acknowledging that a court's decision regarding an extreme case can result in law that poorly serves less extreme cases. The Supreme Court's recent trio of 35 U.S.C. § 101...more

Help Wanted: Supreme Court Looking for Expert to Fill In The Right Words for Patent Eligibility Test

There's a new job opening at the Supreme Court: Job Description: Complete test of patent eligiblity sketched out by this Court’s decisions in Bilski v. Kappos and Mayo v. Prometheus. Self starter required: must be...more

MBHB Snippets: Review of Developments in Intellectual Property Law - Volume 11, Issue 3 (Summer 2013): Not Just a Flook?:...

On May 10, 2013, the Federal Circuit handed down the much-anticipated en banc decision in CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp. This case is perhaps the most important 35 U.S.C. § 101 jurisprudence regarding the patent eligibility of...more

Beineke v. Kappos – Are Discovered Plants Patentable?

In November, Walter Beineke petitioned the Supreme Court for review of a Federal Circuit decision affirming the rejection of two plant patents on tree varieties that he discovered as not patent-eligible. This month, the PTO...more

Federal Circuit May Have More To Say On Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) As USPTO Appeals Exelixis v. Kappos

Executive Summary: Three years removed from the Federal Circuit’s decision in Wyeth v. Kappos, patentees are seeking additional extensions of patent term based on the recent decision issued in Exelixis v. Kappos, which could...more

Patent Watch: C.W. Zumbiel Co. v. Kappos

[T]he preamble constitutes a limitation when the claim(s) depend on it for antecedent basis, or when it "is essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body." On December 27, 2012, in C.W. Zumbiel Co. v....more

Patent Watch: Pregis Corp. v. Kappos

[A] third party cannot sue the PTO under the APA to challenge a PTO decision to issue a patent. On December 6, 2012, in Pregis Corp. v. Kappos, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Prost, Clevenger,...more

Novartis AG v. Kappos (D.D.C. 2012)

In an opinion issued earlier this month, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia determined that Novartis AG and Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc. had not satisfied the 180-day...more

Patent Term Adjustment Update - Exelixis v. Kappos

A recent ruling by the Eastern District of Virginia recently found that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) had been incorrectly calculating a patent term adjustment statute concerning a Request for...more

District Court holds filing of Request for Continued Examination does not reduce patent term adjustment

On November 1, 2012, the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued a decision in Exelixis v. Kappos (Case No. 1:12cv96), rejecting the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) interpretation of the...more

Belkin International, Inc. v. Kappos - A Cautionary Tale in the Intricate Arena of Inter Partes Reexamination

On Tuesday of last week, the Federal Circuit held that a party bringing a request for inter-partes reexamination may not appeal a decision by the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that certain prior art does...more

ArQule v. Kappos: Enjoy Your Weekend, or What a Difference a Day (or Two or Three) of PTA Can Make

A few years ago we had provided some cautionary advice relating to the dichotomy between a timely filed response in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 21(b), and a delayed response pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.704(b). 35 U.S.C. §...more

Kappos Uses Blog to Highlight Benefits of Cooperative Patent Classification

At Sheldon Mak & Anderson, we recognize that innovation is your competitive edge – and it needs protection. As a full-service intellectual property firm with more than two decades of experience, we provide local, regional,...more

Kappos v. Hyatt (2012)

That rarest of rara aves issued from the Supreme Court yesterday, an affirmance of a Federal Circuit opinion in Kappos v. Hyatt. Perhaps it is because, as in Stanford v. Roche one of the parties was the government (here,...more

Kappos v Hyatt

Kappos v Hyatt

There are no limitations on a patent applicant’s ability to introduce new evidence in a §145 proceeding beyond those already presentin the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If new evidence is...more

Supreme Court Eases Test for Patentability in Bilski v. Kappos

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a business method invention was not entitled to a U.S. patent because it was merely an abstract idea. On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Bilski v. Kappos,...more

Viewpoints on Life After Bilski v. Kappos

Introduction Last week, the Supreme Court announced its much-anticipated and long-awaited decision in Bilski v. Kappos1, a case centered on the scope of patent-eligibility of process claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Not...more

30 Results
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.