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 — Earlier this summer, in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the District Court for the Northern District of California granting summary judgment of invalidity of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,258,540 (see "Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015)"). On August…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The Federal Circuit's Ariosa v. Sequenom decision handed down earlier this summer marked the apex (or nadir, according to your prejudices) of the current trend to limit the scope of patent eligible subject matter. On Thursday, twelve amicus curiae briefs were filed in support of Sequenom's petition to the full…
-
By Michael Borella — On July 30, 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office updated its subject matter eligibility guidance ("Eligibility Update"). This update provides recommendations and resources for examiners in addition to those in the Office's 2014 Interim Guidance on Subject Matter Eligibility. In particular, the Office addressed several broad themes from comments it…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Earlier this summer, in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the District Court for the Northern District of California granting summary judgment of invalidity of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,258,540 (see "Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015)"). Last week,…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Pursuant to the Notice published in the Federal Register today, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office provided additional materials related to the Office's interpretation of what does (and what does not) satisfy the subject matter eligibility requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 101 (as interpreted by the Supreme Court). What was…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will publish a Notice on July 30th that the Office is updating their procedures for determining subject matter eligibility. A copy of this Notice can be found here. The update will contain three appendices: • Appendix 1 provides new examples that are illustrative of…
-
By Michael Borella — Section 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) established a transitional program through which the USPTO conducts post-grant reviews of covered business method (CBM) patents. For the most part, § 18 incorporates the procedural aspects of 35 U.S.C. §§ 321–329, which codifies post grant reviews. The CBM review process is an…
-
By Paul Cole* — The June 12, 2015 decision of the Federal Circuit in the above case has been discussed by Kevin Noonan in his posting of 22 June, but it is believed that the factual and legal background could benefit from further discussion. It is convenient to consider claims 1 and 2 of…
-
By Eddie Obissi and Michael Borella — Note: This coverage of a district court case from last year provides an overview of the patented invention, as well as the decision currently being appealed to the Federal Circuit. In a subsequent article, we will review the parties' briefs. On November 21, 2012, McRo, Inc., doing business as…
-
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…
Patent Docs 