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
On September 18, in identical opinions issued in separate cases against Google and Apple, EDVA District Judge Michael Nachmanoff ruled that four patents directed toward geolocation of mobile devices claimed patent-ineligible...more
Two bills recently introduced in Congress could significantly affect the current patent litigation landscape. The bipartisan bills are titled the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023 and the Promoting and Respecting...more
When the Supreme Court began poking around into the law of patent eligibility just over a decade ago, the invention topics that it considered under the abstract idea exception were limited to types of financial transactions. ...more
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a U.S. district court’s holding at the pleadings stage that claims of a delivery notification patent were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The case is Electronic Commc’n Tech., LLC v....more
Introduction - Packet Intelligence sued NetScout in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,665,725, 6,839,751, and 6,954,789. The District Court ruled that all three patents were valid...more
Electronic Communication Technologies (ECT) sued ShoppersChoice in the Southern District of Florida for allegedly infringing claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 9,373,261. The claim recites...more
The Federal Circuit held that two patents directed to methods of preparing samples for use in diagnostic methods are patent eligible under Section 101, reversing a decision from the District Court for the Northern District of...more
Curb Mobility sued a handful of taxicab companies in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada and alleged infringement of a patent titled "System for Credit Card Acceptance in Taxicabs." Curb's complaint focused on...more
The PTAB Cannot Approve or Deny Certificates of Correction - In Honeywell International, Inc. v. Arkema Inc., Arkema France, Appeal Nos. 2018-1151, -1153, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) does not have the...more
Broad Claim Language and Unpredictability in the Art Lead to Non-Enablement - In Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-2498, -2499, -2545, -2546, broad patent claims were invalid as...more
Just Because Something May Result From a Prior Art Teaching Does Not Make it Inherent in that Teaching - In Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1599, the Federal Circuit clarified that the mere...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
In the recent decision of Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, the Federal Circuit may have expanded how factual questions underpin subject matter eligibility analysis under Section 101. Since the two-part eligibility...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
Machine learning is one of the fastest growing categories of granted patents[1]. However, there do not appear to be many examples of patent infringement lawsuits where machine learning claims have been analyzed by the courts...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Reyna, Wallach, and Hughes. Appeal from the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Summary: When the only unconventional feature of the patent claim is what has already been...more
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit refused rehearing en banc of two significant decisions regarding patent-eligibility under § 101 (Aatrix and Berkheimer) on May 31, with a majority of active judges on...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
In 2014, the United States Supreme Court in a landmark decision in the field of Patent Law (Alice Corp. v. CLS Int’l) invalidated software patents related to mitigating settlement risk. Relying on the now-infamous Section...more
Intellectual Ventures (IV) sued Symantec in the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,537,533. The District Court invalidated the '533 patent on a summary judgment motion as being directed to...more
In reading post-Mayo/Alice decisions, some seem more comfortable than others. I’ve been having a tough time getting my head and heart around a recent decision from Judge Leonard Stark of the District of Delaware. The case is...more
Two recent Federal Circuit decisions in the U.S., both penned by Judge Moore, significantly raise the bar for accused infringers seeking to invalidate patents on § 101 grounds before trial. Although one prior Federal Circuit...more
Next generation automated fare collection systems (AFC) typically characterized by open architecture designs, open payment approaches, and contactless card readers, are being installed in an increasing number of public...more
The Supreme Court’s Alice decision is now more than three years old, however, stakeholders, the courts and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are still struggling to understand Alice and, in particular, how to determine...more
In a recent order from the District of Massachusetts, the court granted a defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a patent infringement dispute, finding the asserted patent claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court’s...more