Category Archives: Section 101

Exergen Corp. v. Kaz USA, Inc. – A Crack in the Patent Eligibility of Diagnostic Claims?

In Exergen Corp. v. Kaz USA, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-2315, 2016-2341 (Fed. Cir., March 8, 2018) (Non-precedential). A panel of Moore, Bryson and Hughes (Hughes dissenting), upheld a district court decision, following trial, that claims to a method of measuring … Continue reading

Posted in Alice, Claim Construction, Section 101 | Leave a comment

A Vibration Dampener Fails Mayo/Alice Test in D. Delaware – Is the Decision as Shaky as it Seems?

This is a guest post from Gregory Stark, a Principal of Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner. The Vibration Dampener decision is not as bad as the headline might suggest, the claims are very broad method of manufacturing claims.  Accordingly, the claims … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Section 101 | 1 Comment

Cleveland Clinic – Time to Purport an Inventive Concept in a Diagnostic Invention?

As an introduction to this topic, please reread my post of July 5, 2017 about The Cleveland Clinic v. True Health Diagnostics, subtitled “Time to Redefine ‘Inventive Concept’”? The claim were directed to diagnosing the presence of cardiovascular disease (CAD) … Continue reading

Posted in Section 101 | 1 Comment

Chinese Team Reports Cloning Two Monkeys Using the Same Nuclear Donor – But Don’t Try to Patent Them!

On January 25, a team at the Chinese Academy of Sciences published an online paper that will appear in Cell, 172, 1-7 (Feb. 8, 2018) reported the cloning of two Macaque Monkeys by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. While non-primate animals such … Continue reading

Posted in Section 101, Stem Cells/Cloning | Leave a comment