Revisiting McGirt: New Legal Developments Challenge Oklahoma’s Landmark Ruling
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
The U.S. Supreme Court has once again been urged to revisit 35 U.S.C. § 101, the statute governing patent eligibility. Audio Evolution Diagnostics, Inc. (AED) filed a petition for writ of certiorari, challenging the Federal...more
Dennis Crouch, famed Patently-O blogger, recently looked at several Section 101 decisions from the PTAB. In his first post, "Four Funerals: Recent 101 Decisions," Crouch analyzes four recent eligibility cases that involve...more
In this latest roundup, we look at some recent opinions from around the country, an interesting article discussing the constitutionality of the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act, "My Cousin Vinny" and more....more
The Supreme Court seemed, at least to a small degree, interested in evaluating the subject matter eligibility of diagnostic claims when it requested that the respondents (Natera Inc. and Eurofins Viracor Inc.) respond to a...more
On June 22, Senator Thom Tillis (R – NC) and Senator Chris Coons (D – DE) introduced the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023, which seeks to eliminate all judicial exceptions to patent eligibility. The bill proposes...more
On May 15, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court denied two highly watched petitions for certiorari, refusing to hear cases that dealt with the patent eligible subject matter requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court’s...more
In our roundup on April 28, we mentioned that the Solicitor General suggested that the U.S. Supreme Court grant cert in two pending patent eligibility cases: 1) Tropp v. Travel Sentry and 2) Interactive Wearables v. Polar...more
The Solicitor General, responding to a call from the Supreme Court for the government’s views, in April filed a brief directed to the proper legal standard for the “abstract idea” exception to patent eligibility under 35...more
"Hope springs eternal [in the human breast]" (Alexander Pope) and "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" (the latter attributed variably to Albert Einstein and Werner Erhart) are two...more
I first wrote on American Axle back in 2019. Nearly three years and dozens of hits for "American Axle" on hklaw.com later, we'll finally get an answer to whether the U.S. Supreme Court will hear another Section 101 dispute....more
With the Supreme Court’s October 2021 Term winding down, we thought we’d check in on the cases from the Federal Circuit where the Supreme Court called for the views of the Solicitor General on whether to grant review (often...more
Today, the Supreme Court requested the views of the Solicitor General in its consideration of American Axle's certiorari petition, which asks the Court to reverse the Federal Circuit's decision in American Axle & Mfg. v....more
Illumina has now filed its brief in opposition, completing the certiorari petitions/responses for all parties in the concurrent American Axle and Ariosa patent eligibility cases. True to form, neither of the filings in...more
In our previous post, we promised to revisit the American Axle and Ariosa petitions for certiorari in February 2021 once responses had been filed. However, the U.S. Supreme Court granted extensions in both cases; the first...more
In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Section 101 patent eligibility cases again, and again, and again. But is 2021 the year that the Supreme Court finally addresses the topic? Maybe. I'm hesitant to say yes....more
Those waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on Section 101 were, once again, disappointed this week. On Nov. 16, 2020, in the case of WhitServe LLC v. Donuts Inc. et al., case no. 20-325 (U.S. Supreme Court), the...more
SIPCO, LLC v. EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The Board’s determination that a patent qualifies for CBM review is non-appealable under 35...more
On October 23, 2020, a Federal Circuit panel issued a unanimous decision in American Axle & Manufacturing v. Neapco Holdings—a case we’ve discussed on this blog several times before—in which the panel denied American Axle’s...more
On October 23, 2020, in a remarkable order demonstrating how a “bitterly divided” Federal Circuit views post-Alice patent eligibility jurisprudence, the court denied the motion of American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. (“AAM”)...more
AMERICAN AXLE & MANUFACTURING v. NEAPCO HOLDINGS LLC - Before Dyk, Moore, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. (AAM) sued Neapco...more
Federal Circuit Refuses to Issue Stay in Mandate Pending Certiorari Decision - One of the most interesting (albeit troubling) decisions by the Federal Circuit in the past year or so was its decisions, by a panel and then...more
On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court issued an Order in Emerson Elec Emerson Electric Co., Petitioner v. SIPCO, LLC, Case 19-966, stating “Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
Mallinckrodt filed a certiorari petition with the Supreme Court last week, over the Federal Circuit panel decision (by Chief Judge Prost joined by Judge Dyk; Judge Newman dissented on the issue before the Court in this...more