What Does the Supreme Court Ruling in Alice v. CLS Mean to a Software Entrepreneur?
It's been a while since I last posted, and I apologize for that. (If interested, here's an alert about what's kept me away: a CFAA trial we wrapped up in late July.) But I am back, so let's look at the latest on the Section...more
The U.S. Supreme Court conferred on two patent eligibility cases last week. And, if you are like me, you did not sleep a wink while anxiously awaiting the Court's decision. But if you're reading this, you likely already know...more
Over the past year, Pebble Tide LLC has asserted its two patents against an array of companies – from banks and insurance companies to entertainment conglomerates – alleging that the defendants infringe patents related to...more
2019 was another milestone year in intellectual property law that resulted in hundreds of decisions by the courts and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that will affect your company’s litigation, patent prosecution or...more
Plaintiff brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,548,902, which related to online loan origination services. The defendant moved for...more
Responding to the invitation from the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General for the United States has filed an amicus brief for the United States in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USC Inc. v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. Stakeholders...more
On Friday I will be speaking at the AUTM Eastern Regional Meeting, on a panel discussing patent eligibility issues for life sciences inventions. My topic relates to what the USPTO refers to as “nature-based products,” but...more
In Genetic Veterinary Sciences, Inc. v. Laboklin GMBH & Co., the Federal Circuit upheld the district court decision that held claims directed to methods for genotyping a Labrador Retriever invalid under 35 USC § 101 at the...more
In United Cannabis Corp. v. Pure Hemp Collective, Inc., Judge Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado determined that UCANN's CBD patent was not invalid under 35 USC § 101. The court reached its...more
In Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Federal Circuit distinguished method of treatment claims that involve personalized dosing from the claims invalidated in Mayo v. Prometheus, and found them...more
The USPTO has issued updated guidance for examiners and administrative patent judges (APJs) relating to subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 and examining computer-implemented functional claim limitations under 35...more
A great deal of angst has been generated by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision, in Ex parte Itagaki and Nishihara, regarding the panel's application of Section 101 (sua sponte as a new ground of rejection under 37...more
Addressing for the first time the issue of patent validity in the context of an America Invents Act post-grant review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) invalidated two livestock patents as unpatentable under...more
It's been one year since the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. On its face the opinion was relatively conservative, cautioning courts to "tread carefully" before invalidating patents, and emphasizing that...more
In the seven months since Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l was decided, over one hundred patents have been invalidated for claiming ineligible subject matter, more than the total number of patents invalidated under Section...more
Alice and its immediate aftermath in the lower courts – In Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the US Supreme Court held that claims to “generic computer implementation” of abstract ideas are...more