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 Donald Zuhn –- After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its tenth annual list of top patent stories. For 2016, we identified twenty stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe had (or are likely to have) a significant impact on patent practitioners and…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In this recent precedential decision, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision invalidating claims from Nuvasive's U.S. Patent No. 8,361,156 in an inter partes review instituted on a petition by Medtronic, Inc. In rendering its opinion the Court reiterated the need for the Board…
-
Computerized Restaurant Ordering Menu Patents Found to Be Directed to Unpatentable Subject Matter By Joseph Herndon — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision in three Covered Business Method (CBM) reviews between Apple, Inc. et. al v. Ameranth, Inc. The decisions addressed the subject…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Diligence is a patent concept whose applicability was severely restricted under the changes in U.S. patent law created under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. Diligence is important when determining whether an invention was invented prior to an act intervening between invention and patent application filing, in a "first-to-invent" regime. There…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The patent prosecutor's art requires exquisite foresight, if not prescience, in balancing the requirements for specificity needed to satisfy the disclosure requirements of § 112 while anticipating efforts to design around the claimed invention. In a recent nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit illustrated the consequences when these efforts prove inadequate,…
-
By Michael Borella — Amdocs sued Openet in the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,631,065, 7,412,510, 6,947,984, and 6,836,797. Openet moved for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that all four patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The District Court granted…
-
Federal Circuit Finds Another Software Patent Invalid under Section 101 By Joseph Herndon — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a recent non-precedential decision in a case captioned Tranxition, Inc. v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. Tranxition sued Lenovo asserting claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,728,877 and 7,346,766. Shortly thereafter, Tranxition also…
-
Federal Circuit Narrows USPTO's Definition of "Covered Business Method" By Michael Borella — The America Invents Act (AIA) defines a covered business method (CBM) patent as "a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, except…
-
By Andrew Williams — On Friday, December 9, 2016, the Federal Circuit will hear oral arguments en banc in the In re Aqua Products, Inc. case to consider two questions related to the PTAB's treatment of Motions to Amend in IPR proceedings. Specifically, the Court will be considering the following questions: (a) When the patent…
-
By Andrew Williams — The Federal Circuit remanded a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB" or "Board") because the Board invalidated certain claims in a patent without providing adequate notice or opportunity to the patentee to respond to an assertion about a prior art reference. Interestingly, in the In re…
Patent Docs 