Podcast: IP(DC): Inside Patent Reform Efforts, Anticipated Federal Circuit Appeals, and Patent Cases of the Upcoming Supreme Court Term
Is the Patent Litigation Boom Coming to an End?
On September 9, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) reversed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s decision finding asserted claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. §...more
The world of intellectual property law is always changing, and it can be difficult to keep up. Here are 13 developments in patent law so far in 2024 to help you stay in the know....more
Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of an article. The protection granted by a design patent is primarily indicated by illustrations. Since the first grant in 1842, the United States Patent and Trademark Office...more
Patenting antibodies has long been challenging. Although most inventions can be patented based on their functionality, assuming the functionality is new and non-obvious, for antibodies and other biomolecules there is a higher...more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions - SIMIO, LLC v. FLEXSIM SOFTWARE PRODUCTS [OPINION] (2020-1171, 12/29/20) (Prost, Clevenger, Stoll) - Prost, J. Affirming dismissal because claims were ineligible under § 101....more
As discussed in a previous blog post, since Mayo v. Prometheus, critics of medical treatment patents have advocated that such patents should be banned from patenting. While such arguments seemed futile based on the consistent...more
The federal appeals court with jurisdiction over questions of patent law has consistently held that methods of diagnosing a disease or other biological condition violate the Supreme Court’s ban on patenting “natural...more
Co-authored by: Phillip Wolfe In Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) rendered an important decision declaring that the presumption of validity under § 282 includes the...more
Inter partes reviews (IPR) are limited by statute to grounds of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (novelty requirement) and 103 (nonobviousness requirement) and on the basis of prior art patents or printed publications....more
In an inter partes review proceeding, a challenger cannot raise patent-eligibility as a ground of invalidity. Rather, the invalidity grounds are limited to lack of novelty and obviousness. ...more
On remand from the Federal Circuit the PTAB granted authorization for a patent owner to file a supplement to its Motion to Amend in Veeam Software Corporation v. Veritas Technologies LLC, IPR2014-00090, Paper 42 (P.T.A.B....more
The Federal Circuit ruled that the cryopreservation methods at issue in Rapid Litigation Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect Inc., are patent eligible under 35 USC § 101. It therefore vacated and remanded the decision of the U.S....more
In Bascom Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, Bascom Global sued for infringement of US Patent No. 5,987,606, titled “Method And System For Content Filtering Information Retrieved From An Internet Computer Network,”...more
The Federal Circuit in Enfish LLC v. Microsoft reverses the California District Court decision that several patents related to a “self-referential” database were invalid as ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. Overview - ...more
FEDERAL CIRCUIT CASES - PTAB’s Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard Affirmed by Fed. Circuit in First Ever IPR Appeal - On Wednesday, February 4, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)...more
In 1982, the U.S. congress formed a new specialised appeals court, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or “CAFC,” and transferred responsibility for patent appeals from the various regional courts of appeal to this...more
For the first time since the Supreme Court’s Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l decision this past summer, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has found that a patent claiming a software-related invention...more