Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- BioNTech Sues Moderna over mRNA Vaccine Technology
- CNIPA Issues Letter on Identity of Foreign Inventors
- 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
about
Category: Federal Circuit
-
By Michael Borella — Over the last 18 months, the Federal Circuit has been quietly shoring up the non-obviousness provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 103 by enforcing the requirement that an obviousness argument entails making the full prima facie case. That is, in order to invalidate a claim over two or more prior art references, the…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – Detection of paternal cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) in maternal blood (the technology at issue in Ariosa v. Sequenom) was in a different incarnation the subject of an interference between professors at two universities; the decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board in favor of Dennis…
-
By Joseph Herndon — In a nonprecedential decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in inter partes review proceedings which upheld the patentability of claims due to construction of the claim term "is connected to the computer nework". Namely, Samsung Electronics as well as a number of other…
-
An Obviousness Rejection in Patent-Eligibility Clothing? By Michael Borella — In Mayo v. Prometheus, the Supreme Court wrote "[w]e recognize that, in evaluating the significance of additional steps, the § 101 patent-eligibility inquiry and, say, the § 102 novelty inquiry might sometimes overlap." The ongoing existence of this overlap has resulted in a catch-22 for patentees…
-
By Josh Rich — Patent applicants dissatisfied with final outcome of patent prosecution proceedings have long had two options for court review of a Patent and Trademark Appeal Board decision: an appeal to the Federal Circuit under 35 U.S.C. § 141 or a civil action in the Eastern District of Virginia under 35 U.S.C. §…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – Most people have had the experience of becoming lost and, having arrived at their destination, realizing that it was only one false turn that caused their confusion. For those with a physics background one can recall the feature of vector calculus that a small displacement at a first position can result…
-
By Paul Cole* — Proceedings for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,005,303 (Recognicorp, assigned from IQ Biometrix) resulted in an appeal decided on 28 April 2017, which decision was reviewed in this space by Michael Borella, and also criticised (see "Regnoicorp — A Miscarriage of Justice Calling for En Banc Reconsideration"). As expected, a petition…
-
Claims Directed to Providing Financing for Allowing a Customer to Purchase a Car found Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 By Joseph Herndon — In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") in a Covered Business Method ("CBM") review proceeding in which claims…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Last week, the Federal Circuit reviewed the rare event of a preliminary injunction being granted in a lawsuit over a chemical invention, made rarer still by the evidence of likelihood of success on the merits required for the injunction being based on the doctrine of equivalents. And in the opinion,…
-
Message Publishing Patents Found Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 By Joseph Herndon — In a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Court held all asserted claims of five U.S. patents to be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims recite patent-ineligible subject matter. EasyWeb sued…
Patent Docs 