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 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 the latest turn of events in the Athena v. Mayo Supreme Court petition1, Mayo Collaborative Services filed its opposition brief arguing, in essence, that the Court has already spoken on patent eligibility, the Court should leave policy considerations to Congress, and lower courts are not confused about the law. In this closely watched case, Athena Diagnostics… Read more »
In several previous blog posts, we discussed the USPTO’s revised guidance for determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, including a review of potential inconsistencies between the USPTO guidance and Mayo and a recent Federal Circuit decision, which did not defer to the USPTO guidance. We ended on a hopeful note that some combination of the courts,… 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