Tag Archives: judge dyk

Is the “Blocking Patent” Doctrine Part of the Obviousness Analysis?

Last year, in a lengthy split decision, a Fed. Cir. panel affirmed the district court’s ruling that four “add-on” patents that Acorda owned were invalid as obviousness in view of a number of prior art references (Acorda Ther., Inc. v. … Continue reading

Posted in Section 103 | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

USTPO Releases Proposed Revised Section 101 Eligibility Guidelines

On January 7th, the Patent Office released proposed revised s. 101 eligibility examination guidelines for public comment. The proposed Guidelines would supersede MPEP 2016.04(II), the section that controls the analysis conducted at step 2A of the Mayo/Alice test  “to the … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The “Top Ten” IP Stories of 2014 (Most “Definitely”)

I don’t think I can recall a more action-packed year for intellectual property law in my career, much less during the almost six years that I have been writing this blog. I am trying to write this while in transit, … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Ware Technologies, LLC – Splitting a KSR Hair

In KSR, the Court seemed to encourage the broader use of the “logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference” to resolve the obviousness question.  587 F.3d … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment