On June 16, in Optis Cellular Technology v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit issued a decision reversing the district court on multiple grounds, including § 101 patent eligibility and trial procedure, in vacating infringement...more
It's been a while since I last posted, and I apologize for that. (If interested, here's an alert about what's kept me away: a CFAA trial we wrapped up in late July.) But I am back, so let's look at the latest on the Section...more
Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics Europe GMBH, Appeal Nos. 2020-2163, -2191 (Fed. Cir. March 24, 2022) - In a notable review of the USPTO’s new Precedential Opinions Panel, the Federal Circuit discussed the...more
Corresponding Structure Snafu: Lack of Algorithm Renders Claims Indefinite - In Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Appeal No. 20-1646, the Federal Circuit held that the structure for performing a...more
A Maddening Habit - Biotechnology is an unpredictable science. When its practitioners wish to enforce their patents, they often run into a serious problem. Unlike chemists or pharmacologists, who for a century or so have...more
The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) decision declining to analyze patent claims as anticipated or obvious in an inter partes review (IPR) where the Board found the...more
As we know, Senators Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.) introduced a draft bill months ago that would "reform Section 101 of the Patent Act" and followed that up with a series of congressional hearings. Senator...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
Federal Circuit Finds Claims Issued from Reexamination Co-Pending with Appeal Ineligible Where the Changes Did Not Affect Section 101 Eligibility - In SAP AMERICA, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, Appeal No. 2017-2081, the...more
The definiteness requirement for patent claims is set forth in Section 112(b), mandating that a patent specification conclude with one or more claims “particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming subject matter which the...more
Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC (No. 2017-1521, 8/27/18) (Reyna, Taranto, Chen) Reyna, J. - Vacating and remanding the PTAB’s IPR decision because the PTAB erred in not considering portions of the petitioner’s...more
Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more
District Court Abused Discretion in Not Finding Case Exceptional - In Rothschild Connected Devices v. Guardian Protection Services, Appeal No. 2016-2521, the Federal Circuit held that a district court abused its discretion...more
This paper is based on reports on precedential patent cases decided by the Federal Circuit distributed by Peter Heuser on a weekly basis. ...more
Ever since the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank shifted the contours of patent-eligible subject matter, district courts have wielded the two-part test set forth in that decision to dispatch scores of...more
Highlights of 2015 and What to Watch in 2016 in The United States - Commil USA, llC v. CiSCo SyStemS, inC. (Supreme Court, may 26, 2015). In May, the Supreme Court held that a good faith belief that an asserted patent...more
Nunc Pro Tunc Assignments Insufficient To Confer Retroactive Standing - In ALPS SOUTH, LLC v. OHIO WILLOW WOOD CO., Appeal Nos. 2013-1452, 2013-1488, 2014-1147, and 2014-1426, the Federal Circuit reversed the denial of a...more