Archive for the ‘Federal Court’ Category

Patent Office Releases Comments on Standards for Patent Eligibility Examination

Friday, November 4th, 2016

mou memorandum of understanding legal document agreement stampOn November 2nd, Robert Bahr released a concise but informative memorandum that could be entitled “What We Learned From McRO and BASCOM.” I have posted on McRO, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandi Namco Games America Inc. et al., 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016), most recently on Sept. 16th, and I refer you to that post for details of the animation software in question. BASCOM Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 Fed. Cir. 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) involved software claims for filtering content received from an Internet computer network. In McRO, the Fed. Cir. found that the claims in question were not directed to an abstract idea. In BASCOM, the Fed. Cir. discussed the requirements for the elusive “inventive concept” required by the Mayo/Alice test.

(more…)

PTO Proposes Revisions to the Duty of Disclosure (“Rule 56”)

Wednesday, November 2nd, 2016

rule-book-web
After issuing a brief “notice” in 2011, shortly after the Fed. Cir. revised the duty of disclosure in the Therasense (76 FR at 43631), the PTO has now published a notice of proposed rulemaking to gather comments on its specific proposed amendments to 37 CFR 1.56(a) and (b). 81 Fed. Reg. 74987 (October 26, 2016).

(more…)

Chisum and Mueller Dissect The Recent En Banc Decision In Apple v Samsung – “Smartphone Wars: Federal Circuit Shenanigans?”

Monday, October 31st, 2016

This is a guest post by Donald Chisum and Janice Mueller.

The Federal Circuit’s October 7, 2016 en banc decision, 2016 WL 5864573, concerning onchismposte phase of the ongoing Apple v. Samsung smartphone patent wars, may turn out to be the court’s most controversial decision ever. We intend to explore this decision in depth during upcoming Chisum Patent Academy seminars. Meanwhile, for the benefit of Academy graduates and other patent professionals, we circulate here a detailed abstract of the decision, prepared by Academy co-founder Donald Chisum for future inclusion in his Patent Law Digest and the Chisum on Patents treatise. Click to download the detailed abstract.

(more…)

Vanda v. Roxane Labs. – Are Two Natural Laws Better Than One?

Monday, September 26th, 2016

iStock_000007770475_SmallAs you will recall, in Prometheus v. Mayo, the Supreme Court held that a claim reciting a natural law had to have other non-conventional steps to pass muster under s. 101. The natural law in Mayo was the correlation between the concentration of the metabolite of the immunosuppressive drug and the efficacy of the drug – unpleasant side effects at the high end of the recited range and lack of efficacy at the low end. The Mayo Court wrote: “We need not, and do not, decide whether were the steps at issue here less conventional, these features of the claims [the administering, determining and recognition steps] would prove sufficient to invalidate them.” It was unnerving that the invalidated claims were method-of-treatment claims.

In his opinion in a Hatch-Waxman litigation involving the anti-schizophrenia drug Iloperidone, Vanda Pharms., Inc. v. Roxane Labs., Inc., Civil Action No. 13-1973-GMS; 14-757-GMS (D.Del., 2016), Judge Sleet upheld the validity  of the compound and the method claims in Reissue Patent No. 39,198 and US Patent No. 8,586,610. (more…)