Cardex – Patent Eligibility – It's The Claims That Matter

Attorney: Richard D. Kelly
July 25, 2022

On July 18 the Federal Circuit in Cardex, Inc. v. Eurofins Viracor, Inc., affirmed the district court decision finding that diagnostic method claims directed to detecting organ transplant rejections in U.S.P.s 8,703,652 (‘652), 9,845,497 (‘497), and 10,329,607 (‘607) were not patent eligible. The following claim from ‘652 is representative of the claims on appeal, emphasis in the decision:<... Read more

Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in American Axle

Attorney: Richard D. Kelly
July 5, 2022

On the last day of June to the dismay of many, the Supreme Court denied cert in yet another Federal Circuit patent eligibility decision, American Axle. Many had been hopeful of a grant because the Court had requested the Solicitor General’s view on the petition.  In May the SG provided comments favoring granting cert. A dispassionate viewer would probably not have been surprised by the denial since it’s not apparent how any new decision by the Supreme Court could result in consistency from the Federal Circuit. As Judge Albright noted in deciding Health Discovery Corp. v. Intel Corporation, 6:20-cv-666ADA (WD TX December 27, 2021), he found it difficult to extract a unified theory of Alice’s two steps from the Federal Circuit’s § jurisprudence. The function of a circuit court is to take a Supreme Court decision and derive theory of how one is to apply it.  While different circuit court’s may arrive at different conclusions as to how a decision is to be applied, it is rare for a circuit court to be unable to be consistent in its application of the law as announced by the Supreme Court. Yet this is the position of the Federal Circuit. A situation hardly conducive to “furthering the progress of the useful arts.”<... Read more

Federal Circuit Reverses Novartis Gilyena Negative Limitation Decision

Attorney: Richard D. Kelly
June 22, 2022

On June 21, 2022, the Federal Circuit acting on a request for panel rehearing in the decision by the Federal Circuit in Novartis v. Accord Health Care, Inc., 21 F.4th 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2022), affirming the district court’s decision of infringement and validity of the Novartis patent on Gilenya, U.S.P. 9,187,405, granted the request and proceeded to reverse the original decision and hold the asserted claim invalid for failing to comply with the written description of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).<... Read more

Increased Burden in Drafting "Surviving" and "Useful" Utility Patents in the Life Sciences Industry Extends to Design Patents

Attorney: Grace Kim
October 15, 2021

Patents are undoubtedly essential to many industries, and in recent years, the decisions regarding patent eligibility, written description, and enablement have certainly shaken up the life sciences industry in particular. There is an increasing burden on patent applicants and patentees to provide complex, lengthy, thoroughly written disclosures to satisfy the rising standards for written description and enablement, as well as the added pressure to draft multiple claims of varying scope.<... Read more

In re Rudy and the PTO 101 Guidance

Attorney: Richard D. Kelly
April 22, 2021

The USPTO 101 Guidance document has been under a cloud when Judge Brinkema refused to follow the guidance in Cleveland Clinic Found. V. True Health Diagnostics LLC., affirmed at 760 F. App'x. 1013, 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Cleveland Clinic relied on Guidance example 29, claim 1 to assert that its claims were patent eligible since they were drafted in the same manner. The Federal Circuit in rejecting the argument found the 101 Guidance example 29, claim 1 to be "strikingly" similar to claim 1, see760 F. App'x. at 1020, which the Federal Circuit held was patent ineligible. The guidance teaches that example 29, claim 1 is patent eligible. The USPTO has not responded to the Court's criticism and example 29 continues to appear in the Guidance unchanged.... Read more

Claims Directed to Computerized Statistical Methods for Determining Haplotype Phase Are Patent Ineligible

Attorney: Marina I. Miller, Ph.D.
April 6, 2021

The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (“Stanford”) appeals the final rejection of patent claims in its patent Application No. 13/486,982. The patent examiner rejected the claims as involving patent ineligible subject matter. The PTAB affirmed the examiner’s rejection. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the PTAB that the rejected claims were drawn to abstract mathematical calculations and statistical modeling, and similar subject matter that is not patent eligible.<... Read more

An Automated Notification System for Providing Advance Notification of the Pickup or Delivery of Goods was Found Patent Ineligible

Attorney: Marina I. Miller, Ph.D.
July 20, 2020

Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC (“ECT”) sued ShoppersChoice.com, LLC (“ShoppersChoice”), alleging that ShoppersChoice infringed claim 11 of U.S. Patent 9,373,261 (“the ’261 patent”). The district court granted ShoppersChoice’s motion for judgment on the pleadings that claim 11 was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. ECT appealed. The Federal Circuit (“the Court”) affirmed the judgment of the district court.<... Read more

"A Method of Preparation" and Patent Eligibility Under Section 101

Attorney: Marina I. Miller, Ph.D.
March 30, 2020

Before LOURIE, MOORE, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. Illumina, Inc. and Sequenom, Inc. ("Illumina") filed suit against Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., Roche Sequencing Solutions, Inc., and Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. ("Roche") alleging infringement of U.S. Patents 9,580,751 and 9,738,931. Roche moved for summary judgment that the asserted claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The district court granted Roche's motion holding that the claims of the '751 and '931 patents were directed to ineligible subject matter. Illumina appealed. The Federal Circuit ("the Court") reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.... Read more

Solicitor General on Patent Eligibility

Attorney: Richard D. Kelly
December 16, 2019

The Solicitor General (SG) was invited by the Supreme Court to provide comments on the certiorari petitions filed by Berkheimer and Hikma to review the Federal Circuit's 101 decisions adverse to them. The two briefs have numerous similarities including identifying the Court's decision in Bilski[1]as starting the patent eligibility confusion by not grounding its decision on interpreting the meaning of the 35 U..S.C. 101 terms "process, machine, manufacture, [and] composition of matter." The SG asserts that in Bilski the Court did not ground its decision on the stature terms but instead found three exceptions to be not required by the statutory text: laws of nature, physical phenomenon, and abstract ideas. While these concepts are found earlier Supreme Court decisions, Bilski represented the first time they were used independent of the statutory language or constitutional concept of the "useful arts." The SG then described Mayo[2] as continuing the Court's Bilski practice of not tying patent eligibility to any of the statutory or Constitutional language. Alice[3] characterized the Mayo decisional approach as a two step process.... Read more

Patent Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101 of Articles of Manufacture

Attorney: Marina I. Miller, Ph.D.
November 6, 2019

FYF-JB, LLC sued Pet Factory, Inc. for infringing its U.S. Patent 9,681,643 ("the ‘643 patent") covering a tug toy for animals that emits a sound when it is pulled on both sides. Pet Factory moved to dismiss FYF-JB's complaint, arguing that the asserted claims were directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ("the Court") denied Pet Factory's motion to dismiss.... Read more