April 28, 2025
The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the Central California District Court’s summary judgement in Core Optical v Nokia after finding that the colloquial phrase of “one’s own time” in an employment agreement is not an unambiguous term as it relates to employer-sponsored research programs.[1] Core Optical sued Nokia for infringement of US Patent No. 6,782,211,… Read more »
April 07, 2025
Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc: Turning Ballyhoo[1] into Boo Hoo In Amarin Pharma v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc[2]., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court’s dismissal of Amarin Pharma, Inc.’s complaint alleging that generic drug company Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. induced infringement of two of its patents… Read more »
March 24, 2025
In Miller Mendel, Inc. v. City of Anna, Texas, the Federal Circuit ruled that claims directed to a software system for managing pre-employment background investigations were ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. [1] Miller Mendel sued the City of Anna, Texas, for infringement of US Patent No. 10,043,188, which describes a software… Read more »
December 04, 2024
In Cooperative Entertainment Inc. v. Kollective Technology the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court’s dismissal of patent owner’s complaint on the basis that all claims of US 9,432,452 were patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The CAFC reasoned that the patent describes “several alleged inventive concepts which the specification… Read more »
August 21, 2024
“If a patent claims an entire class of processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter, the patent’s specification must enable a person skilled in the art to make and use the entire class. In other words, the specification must enable the full scope of the invention as defined by its claims. The more one claims,… Read more »
July 18, 2024
“The name of the game is the claim,” wrote Giles Rich, the Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit at the time of this comment.[1] Whether or not this pithy aphorism remains true in other aspects of patent law, it has become clear that in the realm of Subject Matter Eligibility, the story told by the… Read more »
June 10, 2024
In a relatively rare panel rehearing, the Federal Circuit vacated its prior decision and reversed the District Court’s decision that the patent at issue was not invalid for inadequate written description.[1] Novartis, the owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405 (the ‘405 patent) directed to the use of Gilenya®, a drug for treating multiple sclerosis, sued… Read more »
May 08, 2024
The Federal Circuit struck down two of IBM’s patents – the ‘789 and ‘389 patents – on the ground of patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, dealing another blow to software-based patents and applications.[1] The ‘789 patent is directed to methods for coordinated geospatial, list-based and filter-based selection, while the ‘389 patent is directed… Read more »
February 06, 2024
The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Grace Instrument Industries, LLC (Grace) v. Chandler Instruments Co. (Chandler)[1] provides useful guidance for patent practitioners seeking to use a term of degree and/or a relative term in their claims to protect an invention. Grace, the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,412,877 (the ‘877 patent), appeals a claim construction… Read more »
May 19, 2023
Regardless of technology area or complexity of the subject matter, nearly all patent practitioners include the same phrase in every application they have ever written — “incorporated by reference herein.” Those magical words, according to the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), allow the referenced material to form “as much a part of the application… Read more »