IP(DC) Podcast: Patent Battles – New Patent Initiatives on the Hill & Notable CAFC/SCOTUS Decisions
Podcast: Patentable Subject Matter in 2019
As we move into the second half of the year, we are alerting you to 11 patent cases that you should look out for during the second half of 2024. This judicial mix touches on a range of industries and interests, such as...more
In 2022, the Federal Circuit definitively ruled that artificial intelligence (AI) systems cannot be named inventors or co-inventors on patent applications, reinforcing the longstanding principle that only natural persons are...more
On December 4, 2023, the Federal Court issued its public judgment and reasons in two patent infringement actions pursuant to s. 6(1) of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations (“Regulations”) and two patent...more
A Federal Circuit judge, sitting by designation in the District of Delaware, granted-in-part and denied-in-part a Rule 12(c) motion by the defendant for judgment based on patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The case...more
In re: John L. Couvaras, Appeal No. 2022-1489 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2023) In our Case of the Week, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeals Board decision that a patent application’s...more
Since the Supreme Court’s decisions in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Lab’ys, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), “diagnostic” patent claims have repeatedly...more
Einstein's aphorism that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome is a hallmark of madness (or at least an inability to learn from the past) inevitably comes to mind when perusing the recent...more
Following the Supreme Court’s Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l decision in 2014, patent eligibility under Section 101 of the Patent Act has been increasingly invoked in early motion practice. In Hantz Software, LLC v. Sage...more
As part of the recovery from the global COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit took steps to return to normal operations. It began requiring live oral arguments in August 2022 and, by November,...more
Courts have long struggled with determining what makes an invention eligible for a patent by applying broad and ill-defined “I know it when I see it” tests that sometimes prevent breakthrough technologies from receiving...more
The Federal Circuit has ruled that only human beings – and not an artificial intelligence (AI) can be considered an “inventor” under US patent law. (We wrote about this issue way back in 2017, by the way…)... ...more
Our previous blog posts, Artificial Intelligence as the Inventor of Life Sciences Patents? and Update on Artificial Intelligence: Court Rules that AI Cannot Qualify As “Inventor,” discuss recent inventorship issues...more
In a June 11, 2021 decision, Yu v. Apple Inc., a Federal Circuit panel issued a precedential decision, with a dissent, upholding the invalidation of patent claims to a digital camera on a motion to dismiss. The claims were...more
Patenting antibodies has long been challenging. Although most inventions can be patented based on their functionality, assuming the functionality is new and non-obvious, for antibodies and other biomolecules there is a higher...more
The 2010s saw many developments in Canadian patent law. Establishment of a trade agreement with the European Union, ratification of an international IP treaty, implementation of a national IP strategy, and other domestic...more
At the same time Congress is weighing a proposal that would amend Section 101 of the Patent Act, Athena Diagnostics has asked the US Supreme Court to review its diagnostic method patent case and thus clarify the Court’s...more
In April, Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) proposed a draft framework for legislation reformulating the standards for determining patent eligibility under § 101 of the Patent Act. The framework largely...more
No provision of the Patent Act has been more frequently litigated over the last several years than 35 U.S.C. § 101. After not having decided a § 101 case in nearly a decade, the Supreme Court issued four § 101 decisions in as...more
As technologies advance, the Patent Office (as well as the Nation’s courts) must utilize Section 101 of the Patent Act to place reasonable limitations on patent eligibility to ensure that our patent system balances the...more
The press is all abuzz with reactions to Judge Mayer’s concurring opinion bluntly stating that “claims directed to software implemented on a generic computer are categorically not eligible for patent.” Intellectual Ventures...more