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
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
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
Like a ray of light at the end of a long dark tunnel, the Federal Circuit’s recent reversal of a determination of patent ineligibility in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016) (Hughes, J.)...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