PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - Artificial Intelligence Patents & Emerging Regulatory Laws
John Harmon on the Evolving Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Intellectual Property
What You Should Know About Seeking Patent Protection in Vietnam
JONES DAY PRESENTS®: Artificial Intelligence: The Growing Role of AI on Patents
Drafting Software Patents In A Post-Alice World
The Federal Circuit in Voice Tech Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 2022-2163 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2024) (Lourie, Chen, and Cunningham), affirmed the PTAB’s determination that claims of Voice Tech Corp.’s (“Voice Tech”) U.S....more
Chewy, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation - Before Moore, Chief Judge, Stoll and Cunningham. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York....more
INVT SPE LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Appeal No. 2020-1903 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 31, 2022) - In its only precedential patent case last week, the Federal Circuit issued a lengthy opinion that revolved around claims that are drawn...more
Genuine Enabling Technology LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., Appeal No. 2020-2167 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 1, 2022) - The Federal Circuit’s only precedential patent opinion this week turned on issues of claim construction. In...more
GENUINE ENABLING TECHNOLOGY LLC V. NINTENDO CO., LTD - Before Newman, Reyna, and Stoll. Appeal from the Western District of Washington. Summary: A finding of prosecution disclaimer must be supported by an unambiguous...more
The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) released new guidelines on patentable subject matter and a set of examples applying the new guidelines to computer-implemented inventions, medical diagnostic methods, and...more
In a significant decision released August 21, 2020, Choueifaty v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FC 837 [Choueifaty], Canada's Federal Court rejected the Canadian Intellectual Property Office’s (CIPO) approach to examining...more
In Linksmart Wireless Tech., LLC v. Caesars Entm’t Corp., Case No. 2:18-cv-00862-MMD-NJK (D. Nev. May 8, 2020) the Court addressed disputed claim terms in U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE46,459 (the “’459 Patent”), Linksmart had...more
Plaintiff brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,548,902, which related to online loan origination services. The defendant moved for...more
The US Court of Appeals vacated a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) obviousness decision, finding that the disputed means-plus-function term was computer-implemented and therefore required the corresponding structure to...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1777 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2019) - In a sternly-worded decision this week, the Federal Circuit held claims to...more
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) recently issued a precedential opinion finding that a lower court had improperly incorporated an embodiment from the specification of the asserted patents into the claims....more
In a second notice of proposed rulemaking (besides the one for patent eligibility) announced January 4, 2019 and published in the Federal Register on January 7, 2019, the Patent and Trademark Office has proposed guidelines...more
The USPTO has issued updated guidance for examiners and administrative patent judges (APJs) relating to subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 and examining computer-implemented functional claim limitations under 35...more
In two recent decisions, judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit expounded on the standards under which software-related patent claims are subject matter eligible under 35 USC § 101. Ancora Techs. v. HTC...more
Distribution Agreements Can Constitute Offers for Sale Under Section 102(b) - In The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2014-1469, 2014-1504, the Federal Circuit held that a distribution agreement qualified as...more
On November 20, 2017, a district court denied a defendant’s Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) motion that sought to dismiss the case on the ground that the asserted patents were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §...more
In issuing its precedential decision earlier this month in Two-Way Media v. Comcast, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Delaware district court determination that four data streaming patents were directed to ineligible subject...more
On October 16, 2017, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that the claims in Secured Mail Solutions LLC, v. Universal Wilde, Inc. (“Secured Mail”) were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35...more
The Federal Circuit recently decided a patent subject-matter eligibility case relating to computer memory in Visual Memory LLC v. Nvidia Corp. In a divided opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court and held...more
Visual Memory v. Nvidia reverses the grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), ruling that the claims recite an enhanced computer memory system and not an abstract idea under § 101. In Georgetown Rail v. Holland, the...more
Nearly three years have passed since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on patent eligibility in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l. The decision, which ushered in an unprecedented wave of cases invalidating...more
Apple successfully invalidated three patents for failure to recite patent eligible subject matter. Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 2015-1792, 2015-1793 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patents relate to synchronous communication systems...more
In a recent article, we discussed how courts have used patent specifications in finding that patents satisfy the Supreme Court’s Mayo/Alice test. However, the specification may be a double-edged sword. Language in the...more
The Mayo/Alice two-step patent-eligibility framework focuses on the patent claims. Nevertheless, recent Federal Circuit decisions have relied on patent specification statements to support holdings that the claims are...more