A consequence (predominantly negative) of the Supreme Court's recent foray into defining (however inadequately) the contours of patent-eligible subject matter is to give the district courts (and to a somewhat lesser extent,...more
Not surprisingly, the Federal Circuit visited upon Plaintiff/Appellant PureCircle two of the Four Horsemen of the Biotech Patent Apocalypse* in a decision affirming the District Court's invalidation of the claims asserted...more
Although merely exemplifying the burden imposed on an appellant by the Federal Circuit's substantial evidence standard of review over decisions by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office regarding the facts underlying legal...more
12/8/2023
/ Claim Construction ,
Entitlements ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Nonobvious ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
PTAB Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) ,
Trademark Litigation ,
Trademarks ,
USPTO
In those (in retrospect) halcyon days more than a decade ago (before Mayo, Myriad, Alice, and the subject matter eligibility quagmire arose), perhaps the most significant Supreme Court decision was KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex...more
Through the vicissitudes of the continuing chaos of subject matter eligibility, Senators Coons and Tillis have been steadfast in attempting to provide a legislative solution. They chaired a series of Congressional hearings in...more
Through the vicissitudes of the continuing chaos of subject matter eligibility, Senators Coons and Tillis have been steadfast in attempting to provide a legislative solution. They chaired a series of Congressional hearings...more
Einstein's aphorism that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome is a hallmark of madness (or at least an inability to learn from the past) inevitably comes to mind when perusing the recent...more
The Solicitor General, responding to a call from the Supreme Court for the government’s views, in April filed a brief directed to the proper legal standard for the “abstract idea” exception to patent eligibility under 35...more
"Hope springs eternal [in the human breast]" (Alexander Pope) and "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" (the latter attributed variably to Albert Einstein and Werner Erhart) are two...more
Judge Giles Sutherland Rich, famous for many things (including being the principal author of the 1952 Patent Act and in particular Section 103, which cabined at least for a while the Supreme Court’s penchant for invalidating...more
Last week, IP Law360 published an erudite and provocative article by Joseph Matal and his colleagues regarding the Supreme Court's recent subject matter jurisprudence in the context of earlier decisions in the 19th and early...more
As promised in our earlier post (see "Professor Sarnoff Provides His Perspective on Tillis Bill"), here we turn to Professor Joshua Sarnoff's thoughts on the portions of Senator Thom Tillis' (R-NC) bill regarding diagnostic...more
Patent Docs has always ascribed to the notion that respectful debate is good for most issues, and with the adage that if you are dumb, it's best to surround yourself with smart people and if you are smart surround yourself...more
Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) introduced S. 4734, entitled "A Bill to amend Title 35, U.S. Code, to address matters relating to patent subject matter eligibility, and for other purposes" last night, as was discussed in an...more
Kathi Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (at right) released a blog post on the USPTO's Director's Blog on Monday addressing the fraught subject...more
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose -
Judge Moore, in Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC stated the obvious when she said in her dissent: My colleagues' refusal deflates the Amici's hopeful...more
In a month where the Supreme Court's conservative majority has exercised its judicial muscle by striking down several well-established precedents, one portion of their jurisprudence is as fixed a constant as the Northern...more
On May 23rd, U.S. District Court Judge James V. Selna of the Central District of California granted summary judgement to Defendant Sweegen, Inc. on its motion that Plaintiff Pure Circle USA Inc.'s claims in suit were invalid...more
The faintest glimmer of hope crept over the clouded patent law horizon today, when the Solicitor General provided the government's views to the Supreme Court in an amicus brief in American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc.,...more
On January 6, 2022, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced a new program with the goal of increasing examiner efficiency. The Deferred Subject Matter Eligibility Response (DSMER) Pilot Program will launch on February...more
The Federal Circuit continued its stringent (if misguided) application of the scope of subject matter eligibility by invalidating claims asserted in CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc....more
It being the holiday season in America, it is perhaps appropriate that patent traditionalists get something more than coal in their stocking from Representatives Massie (R-KY), Gohmert (R-TX), Gosar (R-AZ), and McClintock...more
11/11/2021
/ America Invents Act ,
Board of Patent Appeals ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Reform ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Section 101
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
Exactly two weeks after affirming a decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) rejecting claims for failure to satisfy the subject matter eligibility standard under 35 U.S.C. § 101,...more
The Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) rejecting claims for failure to satisfy the subject matter eligibility standard under 35 U.S.C. § 101, in ex...more