Posts Tagged ‘Federal Circuit’

Rapid Litigation v. CellzDirect – A Break in the 101 Wall

Tuesday, July 5th, 2016

On Julybreak-in-wall 5, 2016, a three judge Fed. Circuit panel of Moore, Prost and Stoll (Appeal no. 2015-1570) reversed the district court’s holding that claims to a method of isolating “hardy” twice -frozen hepatocytes (as I called them in my post of April 26 summarizing the oral argument) were patent-ineligible as no more than a law of nature accompanied by routine cryopreservation steps. (Please go here and read my summary of the oral argument – it will save me some typing time.) )A copy of the decision can be found at the end of this post.)

In that post, I noted that Judges Moore and Stoll hold technical degrees and appeared undaunted by Mayo and the resulting Mayo/Alice test for patent-eligibility. Although Judge Prost did not ask as many questions of the parties during oral argument, she joined in the decision.


Bascom v. AT&T — Patent Eligibility Meet Patentability

Tuesday, July 5th, 2016

…..Or Judge reverseNewman proposes a blended approach when “Abstract Idea” or “Inventive Concept” is at issue. In Bascom v. AT&T, Appeal no. 2015-1763 (June 27, 2016, Fed. Cir.), panel of Judges Newman, O’Malley and Chen reversed the district court’s finding that Bascom’s U.S. Pat. No. 5,987,606 failed step two of the Mayo/Alice test, since was simply a combination of conventional steps carried out using generic computers. (A copy of the decision can be found at the end of this post.) The panel reversed, calling this a close case but found an inventive concept in claims to an individualized internet content filtering system patent eligible since “an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and  non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.”


Exergen Corp. v. Thermomedics, Inc. – How to Flunk s. 101

Thursday, June 23rd, 2016

On June 22d, the Fed. Cir. issued a summarily affirmed the district courts Order that the method claims in suit did not pass the Alice/Mayo test for patentable subject matter. Claim 51 of U.S. patent no. 7787938 is representative:

“A method of detecting human body temperature comprising: measuring temperature of a region of skin of the forehead; and processing the measured temperature to provide a body [core] temperature approximation based on heat flow from an internal body temperature to ambient temperature.”


Same-Day Continuing Applications are Co-pending under s. 120

Tuesday, June 21st, 2016

The outcome of this question of statutory construction was not really in doubt, given the fact that an adverse holding could invalidate thousands of patents which needed same-day copendency to avoid intervening prior art. Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp., Appeal no. 2015-1574 (Fed. Cir., June 21, 2016).

Finding no clear answer in the language of s.120: “if filed before the patenting…on the first application…,” the panel gave great weight to the longstanding practice of the PTO in permitting priority claims when the continuing applications were filed on the same day that the parent application officially issued:

“This is not a case, as we have explained, where the language of the statute actually contradicts the longstanding  judicial and agency interpretation. Nor is it a case in which the longstanding agency position is plainly outside the agency’s granted authority. Here, the position is an essentially procedural one establishing when the agency will consider an input into its process (the legal act of “filing’) and an output of its process (the legal act of “patenting” to occur relative to each other—neither one being a precisely identifiable self-defining physical act, but a legally filing event.”