Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Judge Newman Seeks Recourse from Supreme Court
- Quo Vadis mRNA Vaccine Technology? The State of the IP Lawsuits
- Moderna Settles Patent Litigation with Arbutus et al.
- USPTO and DOJ Statement of Interest in Collision Communications: Another Thumb on the Scale in Favor of NPE Patent Plaintiffs
- Oasis Tooling, Inc. v. Siemens Industry Software Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2026)
about
Category: Patentable Subject Matter
-
By John Wizeman* and Anthony D. Sabatelli** — Clarity on patent subject matter eligibility is still being sought five years after Mayo [1] and three years after Alice [2]. Further adding to the confusion is the fact that discoveries in diagnostics, despite their apparent importance to the biomedical sciences, have been repeatedly determined as ineligible…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last week, in Ni-Q, LLC v. Prolacta Bioscience, Inc., District Judge Michael H. Simon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon denied a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure filed by Plaintiff Ni-Q that the claims of U.S.…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last month, in Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. v. Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc., District Judge Richard G. Andrews of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware denied a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc. Oxford had sought dismissal of a complaint filed by Pacific Biosciences…
-
By Joseph Herndon — Plaintiff Image Processing Technologies, LLC ("IPT") filed suit against Samsung in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division), alleging infringement of three patents, including U.S. Patent No. 6,959,293. The '293 patent, entitled "Method and Device for Automatic Visual Perception," claims improved visual perception processors and a…
-
By Michael Borella — Intellectual Ventures I (IV) brought an action against Erie Indemnity Company in the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,757,298. Erie filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), contending that the claims of the '298 patent did not meet the eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. …
-
By Michael Borella — Two-Way Media brought an action against Comcast in the District of Delaware, claiming infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,778,187, 5,983,005, 6,434,622, and 7,266,686. The District Court dismissed the case on the pleadings, finding that all of the claims were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Two-Way Media appealed, and the Federal Circuit…
-
By Michael Borella — Three years ago, the Supreme Court's Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l case set forth a two-part test to determine whether claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. One must first decide whether the claim at hand is directed to a judicially-excluded law of nature, a natural…
-
Patents Directed to Mail Barcodes Found to be Directed to Ineligible Subject Matter By Joseph Herndon — Secured Mail Solutions LLC appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California's grant of a motion to dismiss on grounds that the claims of seven asserted patents are directed to subject matter ineligible for…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Last month, we reported on a decision in Natural Alternatives International, Inc. v. Allmax Nutrition, Inc., in which District Judge Marilyn L. Huff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied a Motion for Reconsideration filed by Natural Alternatives International, Inc. ("NAI"), and determined that NAI's claim…
-
Telephone Call Processing Patent Claims Found Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 By Joseph Herndon — In the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action on seeking a declaration that none of Plaintiff's accused products infringed any valid claims of Defendant's U.S. Patent Nos. 8,351,591 and 7,822,188,…
Patent Docs 