Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Meanwhile, Back at the PTAB with CRISPR – Update
- 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
about
Category: Patentable Subject Matter
-
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) a significant impact on patent practitioners and…
-
Patent Eligibility Requires Consideration of the Claim as a Whole By Joseph Herndon — The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Eastern Division) issued an opinion on December 21, 2015 in the case captioned 01 Communique Laboratory, Inc. vs. Citrix Systems, Inc., et al. (case no. 1:06-cv-253) regarding patent eligibility under 35…
-
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 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…
-
District Court Adopts Magistrate's Conclusion of Invalidity under § 101 and Grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counts By Donald Zuhn — Last month, in Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Actavis Inc., Judge Richard G. Andrews of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware adopted Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge's conclusion that U.S. Patent No.…
-
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…
-
By Joseph Herndon — Two recent District Court decisions show examples of "weak" claims, which in the past would likely be found invalid as lacking novelty or being obvious, but today are struck down as being unpatentable under § 101. The cases illustrate the need for software or computer-implemented claims to explicitly recite novel structural…
-
By Michael Borella — In a previous article on the USPTO's publication of its 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, we wrote: Despite the Interim Guidance offering a reasonably fair and thorough overview of the current law of patent-eligibility, applicants must remain cautious. The Interim Guidance is for examination of patents only. Courts…
-
By Michael Borella — On July 30, 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office updated its subject matter eligibility guidance ("July Update"). In the July Update, the Office provided recommendations and resources for examiners in addition to those in the Office's 2014 Interim Guidance on Subject Matter Eligibility. In particular, the Office provided procedural and…
-
By Michael Borella — On July 30, 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office updated its subject matter eligibility guidance ("July Update"). The update provided recommendations and resources for examiners in addition to those in the Office's 2014 Interim Guidance on Subject Matter Eligibility. In particular, the Office provided procedural and substantive guidelines regarding the…
Patent Docs 