Search

The article assesses whether the early post-grant decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) favor intellectual property rights petitioners. Topics covered include the high number of cases faced by the board in relation to post-grant patent review mechanisms. Also mentioned are the requirements for driving patent claims in inter partes review such as having broader claim construction and easy-to-cancel claims.

The article discusses the efficacy of two available options for a patent trial proceedings before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) court. The two options mentioned are inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR). It mentions PGR being more powerful as it has a wider scope for any requirement of patentability. It cites a case in the PTAB, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Yeda Research & Development Co. Ltd. to further illustrate the issue.

The article focuses on the patentability of diagnostic methods in Australia under the decision of the High Court in Australia. The likelihood whether courts in Australia will reach the same conclusion regarding the patentability as the courts in the U.S. is explored. The decision held by courts in the U.S. Details on the court case Ariosa Diagnostics Inc. v. Sequenom in the U.S., which deals with the patentability of a diagnostic method, are also offered.

The article discusses what the author refers to as the tension between the U.S. Supreme Court and the nation's Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) with regards to judicial interpretations of patent law as of 2016. According to the article, the Federal Circuit refused to apply U.S. Supreme Court precedent in one case and issued another judgment which undermines a ruling by the country's highest court. The patentability of isolated human genes is examined.

The article focuses on the patent litigation in the U.S. and new cases that help defend patentability challenges under section 101. Topics discussed include patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention, patents challenged under patent infringement act, patent claim under the act and end of certain classes of computer and software-based patents.

The article discusses the court case Amneal Pharmaceuticals Lie v Supernus Pharmaceuticals Inc. wherein the decision was taken by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Topics include the board uphelding the patentability of all challenged claims, the decision showing that pharmaceutical patentees can overcome inter partes review (IPR) challenges to their patents, and pharmaceutical patentees can face increasingly more IPRs.

The article discusses the court case D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc., filed by D'Arcy against the molecular diagnostic firm Myriad Genetics Inc. for the patentability of isolated DNA or RNA in Australia. It mentions that the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia reached a contrary conclusion to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming a naturally occurring DNA segment a product of nature and patent ineligible.

The Federal Circuit's evenly divided decision on whether to have an en banc rehearing signals a 'desperate need for Section 101 reform', say counsel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses Korean Patent Court case patentability of medical use inventions in which strict scrutiny was employed for two aspects of the enablement and inventiveness requirements. In this case the court decided that for a medical use invention directed to a pharmaceutical combination of anti-cancer agents for use in a therapy, the prior-published clinical trial protocol, fails to destroy or negate the novelty and inventiveness of the claimed invention.

The article discusses the court case Association for Molecular Pathology, et al v Myriad Genetics, Inc, regarding the patentability of genomic DNA. It mentions that the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari for Myriad Genetics twice and judges expressed scepticism and ruled that human genes are products of nature therefore they are not eligible for patenting.

The article focuses on laws regarding patentability of softwares in the U.S. with reference to the U.S. Patent Act and decision of Supreme Court in the Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International court case. It mentions decision of Federal Circuit's judge Kimberly Moore regarding death failure of eligibility of computer patents in the Patent Act. It discusses other court cases regarding the same such as "Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp," and "Bascom Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility LLC."

The article reports on opening of a patent law brought by the America Invents Act (AIA) in 2011 at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to review patentability of issued patents. Topics include PTAB pipeline appeal to the U.S. Federal Circuit, final written decision given by PTAB in AIA trials and success of appellants on issues related to construction. Other topics include the U.S. Supreme Court to address question about whether an institution is reviewable and estoppel rules.

The article discusses patent eligibility for software and business method patents in the U.S. citing reference to the U.S. Supreme Court case Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International (Alice). Topics discussed include the court case Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.; uncertainty introduced by Alice and its progeny about the enforceability of software and business method patents; and standards for patent-eligible subject matter.

The article presents a reprint of the article "After Alice: Business-method and software patents may go through the looking glass" that appeared in the February 2015 issue of the Journal. It discusses the U.S Supreme Court's decision in case Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank that addressed software and business-method patents. It focused on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's new standard for patent eligibility and the reaction of the agency's Patent Trial and Appeal Board on business-method patents.

The article reports on the move of eyewear manufacturer Ocuco Inc. to file a request with the U.S. Patent Office to re-examine Carl Zeiss Vision's Patent 6,089,713. The patent claims the invention of back-surface free-form progressive lenses. Ocuco Inc. President, Robert Shanbaum, explained why they filed re-examination.

The article presents an interview with geneticist and broadcaster Adam Rutherford as of August 2013. Rutherford discusses various topics including the social aspects of synthetic biology, BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, and stem cell biology. Actress Angelina Jolie's double mastectomy surgery is mentioned, along with the U.S. Supreme Court's determination that unaltered genes cannot be patented.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board confirms that In light of the Aqua Products decision it will not place the burden of persuasion on a patent owner with respect to the patentability of substitute claims presented in a motion to amend [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

October at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board saw a levelling out of petition filing, the first ever extension of the final written decision deadline for good cause, and one precedential and three informative PTAB decisions [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a patent lawsuit filed by load tracking company MacroPoint against tracking technology company FourKites. Topics include the ruling of Judge Gaughan of the U.S. District Court in Cleveland, Ohio in favor of FourKites, the application of the abstract idea concept from the ruling in the case of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, and the invalidation of the patents made by MacroPoint.

The article discusses a court case wherein the Eastern District of Texas court judge Rodney Gilstrap ruled on granting a motion to dismiss the case on the information retrieval patent of eDekka citing lack of patentable matter. In the case eDekka v. 3balls.com, eDekka argued that the '674 Patent can improve the function of computers in retrieving information to which the court disagrees as to only one Secion 101 motion granted since the 2014 Supreme Court decision on the case Alice v CLS Bank.

The article discusses a Wisconsin court case in which the jury found health solutions company Millennium Health to have infringed medication monitoring solutions company Ameritox's patent covering a urine drug monitoring report. Topics covered include the Marshfield's ownership of the patent and its exclusive licensing to Ameritox, damages to be awarded to Ameritox, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) affirmation of the report's patentability.

The article discusses the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in the 2013 case CLS v. Alice which deals with American business method patents and patentable subject matter under Section 101 of the nation's Patent Act. It states that Alice filed several patents for a computerized trading system. According to the article, seven judges affirmed the U.S. District Court's decision that Alice's method and computer-readable media claims are not patent eligible.

The article discusses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's ruling in the 2013 case CLS v. Alice and its potential impact on computer software patents as of May 2013, focusing on strategies for protecting software innovations. It states that seven of the court's 10 judges determined that Alice's business method patents and media claims are not patent-eligible. Intellectual property attorney Scott McBride is mentioned, along with Section 101 of the U.S. Patent Act.

The article discusses compulsory patent licenses in India and their potential violation of 1994's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), including information on Section 84 of India's Patents Act and legal challenges issued by the pharmaceutical companies Bayer and Novartis. The patentability of pharmaceutical products is addressed, along with Novartis' attempts to obtain a patent for its anti-leukemia drug Glivec.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc. which deals with a diagnostic method patent for establishing the proper dosage of thiopurine drugs. This court is reportedly using its determination of patentable subject matter from the case Bilski v. Kappos as the standard in the Mayo case. The court is expected to rule on the case in 2012.

The article discusses the case of Molecular Pathology v the USPTO involving the patent eligibility of isolated genes. Topics discussed include the oral argument result favoring Myriad Genetics, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) counsel Chris Hansen's claim that there are no differences between natural and isolated genes and the USPTO guidelines for patenting isolated genes.