Co-authored by: Phillip Wolfe In Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) rendered an important decision declaring that the presumption of validity under § 282 includes the...more
On Jan. 4, 2019, the USPTO announced revised guidance relevant to Section 101 rejections (“2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”). The 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance explains that a...more
In Finjan v. Blue Coat Systems, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rendered a decision containing interesting rulings on patentable subject matter (affirming the District Court determination that certain claims were...more
In Amdocs v. Openet Telecom, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court ruling that the claims of several patents were invalid under 35 USC § 101. Judge Plager authored the opinion for the court, and he was joined by Judge...more
This is an update to my recent article about the Federal Circuit’s decision in Enfish v. Microsoft.
In a memo to the Patent Examining Corps dated May 19, 2016, Deputy Commissioner Robert Bahr said that the Enfish...more
On May 5, 2016, the USPTO released an update to its examiner guidance on patent subject matter eligibility. The update includes a new set of life science examples, a memorandum to the patent examining corps with instructions...more
The notion of strategic claim drafting, which experienced patent practitioners understand, is all about writing specific, narrowly defined claims to cover the strategically important “choke points” in a value chain. The...more
The recent decision in In re Smith (Fed. Cir. 2016), in which the Federal Circuit affirmed the rejection of claims 1-18 as being ineligible for patent under 35 USC § 101, represents another example of the shrinking scope of...more