News & Analysis as of

Patent-Eligible Subject Matter › Prior Art › Appeals

Patent-Eligible Subject Matter refers to the types of inventions that can be legally patented. The criteria for patentability varies depending on the jurisdiction. In the United States, for instance, if a... more +
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter refers to the types of inventions that can be legally patented. The criteria for patentability varies depending on the jurisdiction. In the United States, for instance, if a researcher discovers a naturally occurring substance, the substance itself cannot be patented. This issue was examined in a United States Supreme Court case, AMP v. Myriad, in regard to the patentability of human genes.  less -
McDermott Will & Emery

In Determining Subject Matter Eligibility, the Name of the Game Is the Claim

McDermott Will & Emery on

In a decision underscoring the distinct standards governing enablement under §§ 102 and 112, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s finding that a prior art reference was...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Mitek Systems Inc. v. United Services Automobile Association

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC on

Mitek Systems Inc. v. United Services Automobile Association, Appeal No. 2023-1687 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2025) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit examined the limits of declaratory judgment jurisdiction for a...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Watch: Patents That Merely Claim Applying Machine Learning to a New Field of Use Are Not Patent Eligible

WilmerHale on

Stark, J. Sage Products, LLC (“Sage”) challenged a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) decision finding two of Sage’s patents unpatentable. After the original appellee, Becton, Dickinson and Co., withdrew, the Director of...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases: Recentive Analytics, Inc., v. Fox Corp.

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC on

Recentive Analytics, Inc., v. Fox Corp., Appeal No. 2023-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit addressed a question of first impression concerning whether developments in machine...more

Baker Botts L.L.P.

Third Quarter 2024 Federal Circuit Law Update

Baker Botts L.L.P. on

Since serving as a Federal Circuit clerk, Michael Hawes has monitored that court's precedential opinions and prepares a deeply outlined index by subject matter (invalidity, infringement, claim construction, etc.) of relevant...more

Erise IP

Eye on IPRs, April 2024: PTAB’s Analogous Art Finding Upheld by Federal Circuit, Blockchain Gemstone Identifying Process Patent...

Erise IP on

Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Analogous Art Finding - As IP Watchdog...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - April 2024 #2

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC on

Janssen Pharms., Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. et al., Appeal Nos. 2022-1258, -1307 (Fed. Cir. April 1, 2024) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit vacated-in-part a district court’s bench trial...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Under High Pressure: New Mechanism of Action Can’t Save Drug Administration Claims

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board ruling that method claims reciting a mechanism of action triggered by the co-administration of two known antihypertensive agents were...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - June 2023 #2

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC on

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

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - April 2023 #3

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC on

Sequoia Technology, LLC v. Dell, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2021-2263, -2264, -2265, -2266 (Fed. Cir. April 12, 2023) In an appeal from a stipulated judgment of noninfringement and invalidity following an adverse claim construction...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Prior Art Coherency and Cache Incoherency: “Known-Technique” Rationale for Motivation to Combine

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, addressing the issue of whether certain factual and legal conclusions relating to obviousness were supported by substantial evidence, held that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - March 2023 #2

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC on

Apple Inc. v. Vidal, Appeal No. 2022-1249 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2023) In our Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit allowed Apple’s challenge to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) Fintiv rules to proceed, at least...more

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP

Federal Circuit Finds RFID Tagging Claims Patentable Under 35 U.S.C § 101

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP on

On December 16, in Adasa Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corporation, the Federal Circuit upheld patentability of claims reciting an RFID transponder with storage for a particular type of serial number—affirming the district court’s...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Standard Computer Equipment Can Support Inventive Concept under Alice Step 2

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a district court dismissal of a patent case for errors in analyzing the claims’ patent eligibility under Alice. The Court found that regardless of whether the claimed...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Clearly, the Disclosure Was an Error

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) finding that claimed subject matter was not disclosed in asserted prior art where the prior art reference contained an “obvious...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court - February 2022 #2

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC on

Adapt Pharma Operations Limited v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Appeal No. 2020-2106 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2022) - In our Case of the Week, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in both the majority opinion and...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Adaptive Streaming Inc. v. Netflix, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020)

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on

Adaptive Streaming, the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,047,305, sued Netflix in the Central District of California for alleged infringement. Netflix moved to dismiss the case on the pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting that...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Independently Performed, Publicly Disclosed Prior Work Can Lead to Joint Inventorship

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing an inventorship decision that added two co-inventors to patents covering cancer treatments, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed that the co-inventors’ work constituted joint inventorship even...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Federal Circuit Snubs Extrinsic Evidence in Reversing Ruling on 12(b)(6) Motion Arguing Invalidity Under § 101

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP on

In CardioNet, LLC, et al. v. InfoBionic, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s ruling that affirmed a defendant’s 12(b)(6) motion that the asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on step one...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Cardionet, LLC v. Infobionic, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020)

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on

There are (at least) two ways of looking at the course of the Federal Circuit's evolving interpretation of the Supreme Court's subject matter eligibility jurisprudence under Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs.,...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - November 2019

Knobbe Martens on

The Appointments Clause: Ensuring That PTAB Decisions Are Subject to Constitutional Checks and Balances  In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 18-2251, the Federal Circuit ruled that, under the then-existing...more

Knobbe Martens

Avoiding Ineligibility by Claiming a Specific Implementation That Improves upon the Prior Art

Knobbe Martens on

KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH - Before Dyk, Chen, and Stoll.  Appeal from the District of Delaware. Summary: Claims directed to improving the functionality of one tool that is part of a system do not...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - September 2019

Knobbe Martens on

State Sovereignty Principles Do Not Allow a State to Bring a Patent Infringement Suit in an Improper Venue - In Board of Regents v. Boston Scientific Corp., Appeal No. 2018-1700, the Federal Circuit ruled that the patent...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - May 2019

Knobbe Martens on

Reasonably Continuous Diligence Is Not Negated If an Inventor Works On Improvements or Evaluates Alternatives to the Claimed Invention - In ATI Technologies ULC v. IANCU, Appeal Nos. 2016-2222, -2406, -2608, the Federal...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Skepticism Does Not Need to Be Based on Impossibility

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing secondary considerations of non-obviousness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) obviousness decision, finding that skepticism does not need to be...more

65 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 3
Next »

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide