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?
Aviation Capital Partners v. SH Advisors, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the ineligibility of claims directed to determining the taxability status of aircraft based on flight data. The panel upheld...more
The last 11 years have taught us much about the Federal Circuit; namely, that a majority of the judges simply do not seem to appreciate software. Given the statements that several have made in opinions, one might be able to...more
On April 18, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruled in Recentive Analytics Inc. v. Fox Corp. et al. that new uses for established machine learning do not make the claims patent-eligible....more
The patent eligibility of claims involving the use of machine learning (ML) was recently considered by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Case No. 2023-2437 (Fed....more
Last week, Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Reps. Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.) and Scott Peters (D-Calif.) reintroduced the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA), a bill Sens. Tillis and Coons first...more
On April 18, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit") issued a significant decision in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., Case No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025), affirming...more
On April 18, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (“district court”) that found four Recentive Analytics, Inc....more
The question of whether machine learning (ML)-based claims meet the subject matter eligibility requirements under current U.S. patent law remains hotly contested. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)...more
On April 18, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decided a case of first impression regarding the intersection of patent claims directed to machine learning training and patentable subject matter...more
On February 13, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision reversing the International Trade Commission finding that US Synthetic’s composition of matter claim was not...more
On September 17, 2024, Judges Taranto, Chen and Cunningham of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) upheld the invalidation of a patent belonging to Angel Technologies Group, LLC and dismissed...more
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
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
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