Evaluating whether a patent claim is sufficiently “definite” under 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires looking beyond just the claim language itself. The Federal Circuit reaffirmed this fundamental principle in a recent decision...more
There is an ongoing struggle over § 101: the Federal Circuit struggles over the appropriate scope; the lower courts struggle to apply the Federal Circuit's decisions; litigants struggle due to the aforementioned. This has...more
Patent practitioners, inventors, in-house counsel, and patent examiners alike have been clamoring for more guidance on computer-implemented functional claim limitations invoking § 112(f) since the Federal Circuit’s en banc...more
On January 7, 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued new guidance on Patent Eligibility, seeking to improve the overall clarity, consistency, and predictability of patent eligibility analysis performed by...more
In view of recent US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decisions, the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) issued two new guidelines: revised 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, and Examining...more
On January 4, 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) released a significant, much-awaited revision to its patentable subject matter eligibility guidance. The “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter...more
Hot on the heels of the Federal Circuit’s April ruling in Berkheimer v. HP, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a memorandum that, if adopted as part of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedures, would provide...more
...In a recent (and rare) precedential decision, the Board reaffirmed that the Supreme Court’s decision in Nautilus does not change “the USPTO’s long-standing approach to indefiniteness” in the context of pre-issuance...more