Are Your Granted Patents in Danger of a Post-Grant Double Patenting Challenge?
The Briefing: A Prototypical Corporate Salesperson is Not Patentable
Podcast: The Briefing - A Prototypical Corporate Salesperson is Not Patentable
Ways to Amend the Claims in the Patent Invalidation Proceedings
Patent Right Evaluation Report in China’s Patent System
Stages of Patent Invalidation Proceedings
272-1 Federal Circuit Holds a New Invalidity Challenge at the ITC is not a Change in Condition that Enables the ITC to review the Validity of a Patent or Rescind an Exclusion Order - The Federal Circuit (Court) recently...more
In Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland Heartlab, Inc. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, (Cleveland Clinic II)[1], a unanimous panel of the Federal Circuit provided yet another guidepost illustrating what is not...more
In Natural Alternatives Internat'l v. Creative Compounds, LLC, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court decision that held the asserted claims invalid under 35 USC § 101 at the pleadings stage. I previously wrote about...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Judge Newman, Lourie and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Summary: Claims reciting only conventional steps to detect a natural...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Hughes. Appeal from the District Court for the Northern District of California. Summary: Testing for the presence of a bacterium that causes tuberculosis and 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
Inventors of methods of medical testing have had a rough time since the Supreme Court decided Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs. Inc. In the Mayo case, the Court considered whether a method of determining whether...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) issued a final written decision in an inter partes review determining Claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 8,889,135 owned by Abbvie Biotechnology Ltd. unpatentable as obvious...more
While the Supreme Court decisions in Myriad and Mayo have been applied to diagnostic-type claims, method of treatment patents were thought to be safe from the recent judicial expansion of the patent-(in)eligibility doctrine....more
In the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, in a case captioned Perdiemco, LLC. v. Industrack LLC, the Court found some patents having method claims directed to "conveying user location" to be...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
On April 5, 2016, the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in Rapid Litigation Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect Inc., where the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held invalid claims directed to a “method of...more
It comes as no surprise that Sequenom has filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court, asking the Court to review the Federal Circuit decision that upheld the district court decision that held its diagnostic method...more
In Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Epic Pharma LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision holding four OxyContin patents invalid as obvious. In so doing, the court rejected Purdue’s arguments that its discovery of...more
Earlier this summer, in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the District Court for the Northern District of California granting summary judgment of invalidity of the asserted...more