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 ninth annual list of top patent stories. For 2015, we identified twenty stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe had (or are likely to have) the greatest impact on patent practitioners and…
-
Patent Claims (and Specification) Lacking in Detail Fail under 35 U.S.C. § 101 By Joseph Herndon — The Federal Circuit issued an opinion on December 28, 2015 in the case captioned Vehicle Intelligence and Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC regarding patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of method and system claims. Ultimately, the…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Mistakes happen; there is even a book, entitled Human Error, that discusses how and why they happen. The Federal Circuit addressed the consequences of human error (or perhaps more accurately, instances where there was a less-than-perfect understanding of the chemical structure of a claimed invention) in a surprisingly lenient fashion…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — As she has done many times before (and so many times that she has been unfairly characterized as a scold on the Federal Circuit), Judge Pauline Newman dissented from the panel majority decision affirming an obviousness determination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in an inter partes review by…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Interferences, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's procedure for determining which of a plurality of inventive entities were the "first to invent," were eliminated by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, but they are not entirely gone: patents and applications examined and granted under the "old" patent law can still become…
-
By Paul Cole* — There is no point in crying over spilled milk. The denial of an en banc hearing in the above case[1] is now history. Apart from looking at the small print for pointers towards a more moderate approach, the focus now shifts to the expected petition for certiorari. Rule 10 of the…
-
Prolitec Inc. v. Scentair Technologies, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015) By Andrew Williams — In another unsurprising turn, the Federal Circuit affirmed the motion-to-amend practice adopted by the PTAB in IPR proceedings. The majority opinion in Prolitec Inc. v. Scentair Technologies, Inc., authored by Chief Judge Prost, concluded (among other things) that the Board's approach of…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last month, in Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated the decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board concluding that Appellant Ariosa Diagnostics had not met its burden of proving that claims 1–30 of U.S. Patent No. 8,318,430 would have been obvious and remanded for for further…
-
MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (Fed. Cir. 2015) By Andrew Williams — In a decision that likely came as no surprise to anyone, the Federal Circuit upheld the constitutionality of IPR proceedings as provided for by the America Invents Act. With an analysis of two pre-1900 Supreme Court cases (as well as citations to…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit declined to rehear en banc the panel decision in Ariosa v. Sequenom. This decision was not surprising but what may be surprising was that only three judges wrote opinions, one in dissent (Judge Newman) and two concurring with the denial. The first of these was by Judge…
Patent Docs 