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 — Since late last year, the main theme of many 35 U.S.C. § 101 disputes has been whether claims under review are more like those in Ultramercial Inc. v. Hulu LLC or DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com. In the former case, the Federal Circuit held that claiming a disembodied method that merely uses…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Disaster survivors, and even people who just hear about a disaster, are often first overwhelmed by it; they can only rationally process its significance after some time. During that time they overcome the initial visceral reaction and contemplate the effects the disaster will have on the future (and sometimes, develop…
-
By Diego F. Freire and Michael Borella — 1. Background In 2006, Akamai Technologies ("Akamai") sued Limelight Networks, Inc. ("Limelight") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,703. The '703 patent is assigned to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ("MIT") and is exclusively licensed to Akamai.…
-
By Michael Borella — In its first substantive application of Alice v. CLS Bank in 2015, the Federal Circuit has once again shot down claims for not meeting the patent-eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. In 2012, OIP sued Amazon in the Northern District of California, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,970,713. The…
-
By Andrew Williams — The Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in the Amgen v. Sandoz case on Wednesday, June 3, 2015. The three judges on the panel were Judge Newman, Judge Lourie, and Judge Chen. This case is on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where Judge Seeborg denied…
-
By Michael Borella — In August, 2009, Allvoice sued Microsoft in the Western District of Washington, alleging infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 5,799,273. In December, 2013, the District Court granted Microsoft's motion for summary judgment finding that Microsoft did not infringe the asserted claims, and that claims 60-68 of the patent were invalid under…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 146 pursuant to changes in the statute provided by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, in Biogen MA, Inc. v. Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research. …
-
By Andrew Williams — The Hatch Waxman statute created a safe-harbor provision, found at 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1), that allows ANDA filers and others to practice patented inventions without fear of infringement liability, provided the acts are "solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information" to the FDA. Even though the…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit considered the question of indefiniteness on remand from the Supreme Court's reversal in Nautilus v. Biosig and, perhaps not surprisingly, found again that the Biosig's claims were not indefinite. To recap, this case involves claims to heart rate monitors on exercise equipment that determine heart rate by…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Any observer of the interaction between the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court over the past decade has recognized that the Court has become increasingly critical of the Federal Circuit's patent jurisprudence and of patents and patent law in general. This attitude approaches disdain in many instances, for example when…
Patent Docs 