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 Kevin E. Noonan — Accompanying the Federal Circuit's majority decision in Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC is a separate explication of "additional views" by Chief Judge Rader (at right) joined by Judge Newman. These views tend towards the policy and philosophical implications of patent eligibility challenges before the Court in several cases (In re…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit majority decision in Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC engendered a strong dissent from Judge Moore on almost every aspect of that decision. Judge Moore disagreed with the majority's opinion that the claims were patent-eligible, that the issue of inherent anticipation was not properly before the Court,…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Today, the Federal Circuit revisited the patent-eligibility of claims directed to methods for optimizing childhood immunization, in Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC. The Federal Circuit's original opinion, handed down in December 2008, was vacated by the Supreme Court in view of that Court's decision in Bilski v. Kappos, and…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Yesterday, counsel for defendants/appellants filed a petition for rehearing before the Federal Circuit in Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Defendants assert a single ground for rehearing, based on the standing issue and particularly related to their allegations that Dr. Harry Ostrer (the only plaintiff found to…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — On Thursday, counsel for plaintiffs/appellees in Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (who may be simply Dr. Harry Ostrer, the only plaintiff with standing in the case after the panel decision) filed a petition for panel rehearing before the Federal Circuit. As grounds for rehearing, Plaintiffs list…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — On Thursday, counsel for plaintiffs/appellees in Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (who may be simply Dr. Harry Ostrer, the only plaintiff with standing in the case after the panel decision) filed a petition for rehearing before the Federal Circuit. Patent Docs will make the petition…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit today issued its ruling in Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., and the decision illustrates the extent of the effects of the Supreme Court's decision in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. on the Federal Circuit's obviousness jurisprudence. In addition, the decision provides a contrast between how…
-
Is DNA patent-ineligible because it is like software? By Kevin E. Noonan — Recently, in CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., a panel of the Federal Circuit invalidated claims to software directing the performance of a process for preventing fraud in Internet purchases. While this type of decision is generally not germane to the topics…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — On the same day the Federal Circuit rendered its opinion in AMP v. USPTO (the Myriad case), the Court also handed down its opinion in Eli Lilly & Co. v. Activis Elizabeth LLC. In an opinion by Judge Newman, joined by Judge Lourie (Judge Friedman was on the panel, but…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — One of the many questions in the Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Myriad) case decided by the panel was whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring a declaratory judgment action in the first place. This is a fundamental question: "Article III of the Constitution limits…
Patent Docs 