Patent Law Weblog
Category: Patentable Subject Matter
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last week, in Tangelo IP, LLC v. Tupperware Brands Corp., District Judge Richard G. Andrews of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied a motion for exceptional case filed by Defendant Tupperware Brands Corp., finding that Tupperware Brands had failed to establish that the case was exceptional under…
-
By James Korenchan, Michael Anderson, and Yukio Oishi — Patent practitioners who focus their practice in the high-tech sector have most likely encountered Japanese patent law in one form or another. More often than not, companies at the forefront of technological advancement make, use, and sell products in Japan, or have competitors who do the…
-
By Michael Borella — In October 2017, Hyper Search brought a patent infringement action against Facebook in the District of Delaware, asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 6,085,219, 6,271,840, and 6,792,412. Facebook sought to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), alleging that all asserted claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. While all three patents suffered…
-
Court Grants Exceptional Case/Attorney Fees When Software Patent Has Invalid Claims under § 101 By Joseph Herndon — In the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, motions for an exceptional case and attorneys' fees were granted on the basis that the patent owner brought suit with a software patent having claims so "ugly"…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last month, in Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. 10X Genomics, Inc., District Judge Richard G. Andrews of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied a motion to dismiss and/or strike filed by Defendant 10X Genomics, finding that U.S. Patent Nos. 9,562,837 and 9,896,722 were not directed to patent-ineligible subject…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last week, in United Cannabis Corp. v. Pure Hemp Collective Inc., District Judge William J. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado issued an order denying a motion for partial summary judgment filed by Defendant Pure Hemp Collective Inc., finding that Pure Hemp was not entitled to…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Over the past six years, since the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Mayo Collaborative Services, Inc. v. Prometheus Laboratories, it has become more and more evident that correction of the path embarked upon by the USPTO, the district courts, and the Federal Circuit could only occur if Congress…
-
By Sherry M. Knowles — Athena Diagnostics filed a Petition for Rehearing of the CAFC decision in Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo on April 8, 2019. Amicus Briefs are due April 22, 2019. Patent Docs has reported on this decision, which continues to apply U.S. Supreme Court-created common law to the analysis of 35 U.S.C. §…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last week, in Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia holding claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9,575,065 and claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 9,581,597 invalid under 35 U.S.C. §…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last week, in Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware holding the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,808,737 to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In reversing the District Court, the Federal Circuit…
Patent Docs 