Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- REGENEXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2026)
- Apple v. Squires: USPTO Director Has Unlimited Discretion on IPR Institution
- The Ghost in the Machine: Why GenAI Can Be Both a Brilliant Researcher and a Terrible Advocate
- Bayer Files Suit Against Trio of COVID-19 Vaccine Makers
- Allen v. Cooper (4th Cir. 2026)
about
Category: Federal Circuit
-
By Michael Borella — 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. The invention of Bilski v. Kappos was directed to hedging and that of Alice v.…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Baxter Corp. Englewood, the Federal Circuit overturned a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review that claims in the challenged patent were not invalid for obviousness. The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 8,554,579, is directed to…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed imposition of an exclusion order under 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930) by the Federal Trade Commission against 10X Genomyx (an intervenor in this appeal) over importation of patented microfluidic chips, in Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. International Trade…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In one of the more daring (and somewhat risky) strategies by an appellant challenging an adverse decision in a covered-business method (CBM) review proceeding, New Vision Gaming asserted a purported conflict of interest by Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) in making institution decisions. According to the Appellant's argument, the pay, bonus,…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit continues its recent run of decisions extending the reach of the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) to invalidate patents in Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. v. Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc. (albeit in this case, affirming denial of motion for JMOL in the face of a jury…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Last month, the Federal Circuit affirmed an exclusion order imposed by the International Trade Commission against Bio-Rad for importing infringing microfluidic systems and components used for gene sequencing or related analyses, in Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. Int'l. Trade Comm. The ITC's decision followed a complaint by 10X Genomics, an intervenor…
-
By Michael Borella — The legal concept of obviousness is tricky. A claimed invention is found obvious if the prior art teaches or suggests all claim limitations and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the relevant teachings of the references. The inherent subjectivity of such an analysis can…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Exactly two weeks after affirming a decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) rejecting claims for failure to satisfy the subject matter eligibility standard under 35 U.S.C. § 101, in ex parte examination of claims to methods and related computing systems for genetic…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Ever since institution of the post-grant review proceedings enacted under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act were implemented by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (through the newly constituted Patent Trial and Appeal Board), parties (particularly patentees who lost patent rights thereby) have challenged the outcome on procedural, substantive, and constitutional…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) rejecting claims for failure to satisfy the subject matter eligibility standard under 35 U.S.C. § 101, in ex parte examination of claims to methods and related computing systems for genetic haplotyping…
Patent Docs 