Menu
It has long been recognized that, at a certain level, almost all patent claims include some abstract concepts. One of the hurdles facing practitioners and Examiners alike in determining subject matter eligibility under Section 101 has been drawing the line between claims that are “directed to” an abstract idea under the first step of the… Read more »
In a recent subject matter eligibility case, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court decision finding that claims covering prenatal DNA testing were patent-ineligible. The Sequenom patents at issue, U.S. 9,580,751 (“the ‘751 patent”) and U.S. 9,738,931 (“the ‘931 patent”), are directed to a method for preparing a DNA fraction from a pregnant human female… Read more »
In an opinion focused on claim construction and disavowal, the Federal Circuit in Techtronic Industries co. v. ITC found that a patent’s repeated discussion and focus on providing a passive infrared detector disavowed any products that lack a passive infrared detector.1 The patent at issue (U.S. Patent No. 7,161,319, or ‘319 patent) relates to “movable barrier operators”… Read more »
In American Axle & Manufacturing v. Neapco Holdings1, the Federal Circuit was tasked with determining whether claims directed to a method of manufacturing that utilize at least one, and possible other, natural laws, are eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101. As detailed in the dissent by Judge Moore, the Federal Circuit appears to do… Read more »
In our January Blog Post related to the January 2019 USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“the Guidance”), and our subsequent Blog Post in February , we noted that it was unclear how the courts will view issued personalized medicine claims examined under the Guidance, as it appeared that the USPTO may want to push the courts to reexamine the… Read more »
The USPTO’s recently revised guidance for determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (“the Guidance”),1 provides some clarity to Examiners and Applicants as to what constitutes an “abstract idea.” While the Guidance identifies several abstract ideas that fall within the scope of a “Judicial Exception” during Prong One of the Alice/Mayo test (Step 2A of the… Read more »
Tel: (703) 712-8531
Address
Medler Ferro Woodhouse & Mills PLLC
8201 Greensboro Drive, Suite 1060
McLean, VA 22102
Phone and Fax
tel: (703) 712-8531
fax: (703) 712-8525
Address
info@medlerferro.com