The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published guidance on the use of artificial intelligence-based tools in patent practice to inform practitioners of important issues when using Artificial Intelligence (AI)...more
In Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the Supreme Court unanimously held that “[i]f a patent claims an entire class of processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter, the patent specification must enable a person skilled in...more
5/22/2024
/ Amgen ,
Amgen v Sanofi ,
Healthcare ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inventions ,
Life Sciences ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Popular ,
Sanofi ,
SCOTUS
In Hip, Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corp., the U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, held that there was no joint inventorship when the contribution of preheating meat pieces using an infrared oven was insignificant in quality...more
In Commscope Techs. LLC v. Dali Wireless, Inc. the Director of the U.S. Patent Office issued a precedential decision that discretionary denial requires the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to perform the compelling merits...more
In Nested Bean, Inc. v. Big Beings USA Pty Ltd., the director of the 'U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Patent Office) (Director) granted review and modified the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (Board) final written decision...more
In Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office made precedential a prior decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) over when an expert declaration from an inter partes...more
In Infernal Technology, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed the long-standing principle that in grammatical terms, use of “said” or “the” in a claim are anaphoric...more
Executive Summary -
The patent application examination requirement is statutory based rather than a Constitutional requirement. For instance, from 1793 to 1836, the U.S. Patent System operated on a registration system...more
In American National Manufacturing Inc. v. Sleep Number Corporation, the Federal Circuit held that so long as a proposed claim amendment does not enlarge the scope of the claims, does not add new matter and is responsive to a...more
In Finjan LLC v. ESET, LLC, the Federal Circuit held that a definition provided in any incorporated-by-reference document is a part of the host patent. However, the use of a restrictive definition of a claim term in an...more
In CUPP Computing AS v. Trend Micro Inc., the Federal Circuit held that a disclaimer made in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding was not binding in that proceeding, i.e., the disclaimer is not binding in the proceeding in...more
In Cooperative Entertainment, Inc. v. Kollective Technology, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that useful improvements to computer networks can be patent eligible even when standard computing equipment is used. In addition,...more
In Weisner v. Google LLC, the Federal Circuit held claims directed to mobile device location tracking contained an inventive concept that transformed the abstract idea of creating and using travel histories to improve...more
The United States Patent Office issued a final rule on the receipt date of patent correspondence officially submitted electronically using the Patent Office electronic filing system. The final rule became effective on...more
In LG Electronics Inc. v. Immervision, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that an obvious error in a prior art reference was not considered a teaching. The court explained that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would...more
In In re McDonald, the Federal Circuit held that the recapture rule prevented reissue claims from including features deliberately relinquished in response to a patent eligibility rejection. As a result, the accompanying...more
In Genuine Enabling Technology LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., the Federal Circuit held that statements made during prosecution—to distinguish the prior art on the ground that it taught slow-varying signals whereas the invention...more
In Konda v. Flex Logix Technologies, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that a provisional application incorporated by reference in a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) application was prior art against the later filed claims of the...more
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued updated interim guidance on when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) may deny review of patents based on parallel litigation, which should provide clarity on when denials are...more
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued updated guidance on acceptable uses of applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 311.1 This guidance replaces the guidance...more
In VDPP LLC v. Vizio, Inc.,1 the Federal Circuit held that the claim terms “processor” and “storage” were not considered to be drafted in means-plus-function format and, therefore, were not subject to interpretation under 35...more
In California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Limited,1 the Federal Circuit overruled prior precedent and clarified that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel applies not just to claims and grounds asserted in the petition...more
In Junker v. Medical Components, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that a catheter insertion design patent was invalid because the claimed design was offered for sale more than a year before the design patent application was...more
6/28/2022
/ Commercial Offer for Sale ,
Design Patent ,
Healthcare ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inventions ,
Life Sciences ,
On-Sale Bar ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Price Quotes
In Qualcomm Incorporated v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit held that applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) may not be the basis of an invalidity ground in an inter partes review (IPR), and therefore, an IPR petition cannot...more
In CosmoKey Solutions GMBH & Co. KG v. Duo Security LLC, the Federal Circuit held that an improved method for overcoming computer hacking by turning on and off the authentication process was patent eligible. The court held...more
5/3/2022
/ Abstract Ideas ,
Authentication ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Data Protection ,
Hackers ,
Innovative Technology ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inventions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Section 101