News & Analysis as of

Section 101 Patent Invalidity CAFC

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Finds Claims of Selectorized Dumbbell Weight Patent Not Directed to an Abstract Idea

A&O Shearman on

On August 11, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued an opinion reversing the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah that found certain claims of a selectorized dumbbell...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

PowerBlock Holdings, Inc. v. iFit, Inc.: Electro-Mechanical Systems That Automate Physical Actions Can Be Patent Eligible Under §...

Modern electro-mechanical systems—ranging from humanoid robots and automated assembly lines, to smart workout equipment and medical devices—combine mechanical and electronic components to automate the performance of physical...more

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Upholds Invalidation Of Photo-Tagging Patents Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 And Alice/Mayo

A&O Shearman on

On September 17, 2024, Judges Taranto, Chen and Cunningham of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) upheld the invalidation of a patent belonging to Angel Technologies Group, LLC and dismissed...more

A&O Shearman

Federal Circuit Reverses § 101 Summary Judgment Of Invalidity, Holding That Describing Claims At High Level Of Abstraction And...

A&O Shearman on

On September 9, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) reversed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s decision finding asserted claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. §...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

For the First Time, a Medical Treatment Patent Is Ruled Invalid Under Mayo/Myriad

As discussed in a previous blog post, since Mayo v. Prometheus, critics of medical treatment patents have advocated that such patents should be banned from patenting. While such arguments seemed futile based on the consistent...more

Sunstein LLP

Section 101 Gains a Toehold in IPRs

Sunstein LLP on

Inter partes reviews (IPR) are limited by statute to grounds of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (novelty requirement) and 103 (nonobviousness requirement) and on the basis of prior art patents or printed publications....more

6 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide