Category Archives: Alice

Sixteen Critical 2016-2017 Patentability & Validity Developments

This is a guest post from Donald Chisum and Janice Mueller of the Chisum Patent Academy. Below are highlights of the Critical  Patentability & Validity Developments of 2016-2017.   The Federal Circuit’s January 2017 decision in Sonix Tech. Co. v. Publications Int’l, … Continue reading

Posted in 102 Patentability, Alice, Appeals, Assignment/Ownership, Claim Interpretation, Federal Court, Infringement, Post-Grant Issues, USPTO Practice and Policy | Leave a comment

Mallinckrodt v. Praxair – Innomax Method Patent Fails Alice/Mayo Test

On Tuesday, a Delaware district court judge ruled that a group of Mallinckrodt patents failed the Alice/(mostly)Mayo test as claiming a natural phenomenon. The patents are directed to a method of safely using the Innomax system, which administers nitric oxide to infants … Continue reading

Posted in Alice, Federal Court, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The Cleveland Clinic v. True Health Diagnostics LLC – Time to Redefine “Inventive Concept”?

Ariosa was a decision that essentially held that the novel discovery of a naturally-occurring phenomenon could not per se meet the Mayo/Alice requirement for an inventive concept, even though it was of “groundbreaking importance” in advancing medicine. The claims appealed in … Continue reading

Posted in Alice, Federal Court | 1 Comment

Just When You Thought Things Couldn’t Get Worse Via The Application Of 101

On Friday, in Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, Appeal no. 2016-1766 (Fed. Cir., June 16, 2017), a Fed. Cir. panels of Judges Lourie, Reyna and Wallach (Reyna writing) held that claims to a method of assessing a test … Continue reading

Posted in Alice, Federal Court, Section 101 | 2 Comments