Category Archives: Patent Eligibility (101)

Rejection of Stanford’s genotyping claims affirmed as patent ineligible under section 101

In re:  Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Docket No. 2020-1288 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1288.OPINION.3-25-2021_1753695.pdf) PROST, LOURIE, REYNA March 25, 2021 Brief Summary:  PTAB decision of ineligibility under section 101 of second Stanford patent application affirmed (“patent ineligible abstract ideas … Continue reading

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Rejection of Stanford’s diagnostic claims affirmed as “mental steps… not integrated into a practical application”, not including a “specific method of treatment for specific patients using a specific compound at specific doses to achieve a specific outcome”

In Re:  Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Docket No. 2020-1012 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1012.OPINION.3-11-2021_1746411.pdf) PROST, LOURIE, REYNA March 11, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board decision finding Stanford’s diagnostic claims ineligible (“mental steps… not integrated into a practical application”, no “specific … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Section 101 (see also Patentability), Software | Leave a comment

DC claim construction and indefiniteness findings affirmed; ineligibility conclusions not reached by FC panel

Synchronoss Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc., Funambol, Inc. Docket No. 2020-2196, -2199 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-2196.OPINION.2-12-2021_1732513.pdf) PROST, REYNA, TARANTO February 12, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC claim construction, invalidity for indefiniteness, and grant of SJ affirmed. Summary:  Synchronoss appealed DC claim constructions and grant … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Indefiniteness, Means-plus-function, Patent Eligibility (101), Section 101 (see also Patentability), Software | Leave a comment

Board IPR FWD finding Sanofi’s amended claims not unpatentable affirmed

Mylan Laboratories Limited v. Aventis Pharma S.A. Docket No. 2020-1302 (IPR2016-00712) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1302.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.1-15-2021_1718184.pdf) NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, WALLACH January 15, 2020 Brief Summary:  FC panel affirmed Board IPR FWD finding Sanofi’s amended claims not to be unpatentable for obviousness, public use and section … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Patent Eligibility (101), Public Use | Leave a comment

DC ineligibility decision erroneous as claims not “solely directed to the printed matter”

C. R. Bard, et al. v. AngioDynamics, Inc. Docket No. 2019-1756, -1934 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-1756.OPINION.11-10-2020_1683097.pdf) REYNA, SCHALL, STOLL November 10, 2020 Brief Summary:  DC erroneously granted JMOL based on expert mistake and conclusion that printed matter made claims patent ineligible under section … Continue reading

Posted in Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability | Leave a comment

SCOTUS’ 2020 Thryv decision “makes clear that the threshold determination” of CBM review eligibility “non-appealable under 35 U.S.C. 324(e)”

SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Electric Co. Docket No. 2018-1635 (CBM2016-00095) O’MALLEY, REYNA, CHEN September 25, 2019 Update (11/17/20):  FC panel explained that SCOTUS’ 2020 Thryv decision “makes clear that the threshold determination that SIPCO’s ‘842 patent qualifies for CBM review … Continue reading

Posted in Covered Business Method Reviews, Patent Eligibility (101), Software | Leave a comment

Induced infringement decision reversed (“subjective bad faith”); eligibility decision affirmed (“improving a basic function of a computer”)

TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc., et al. Docket No. 2019-2192, -2258 PROST, REYNA, TARANTO October 23, 2020 Brief Summary:  DC incorrectly excluded evidence of induced infringement (“subjective bad faith”) but correctly found patent eligibility (“directed to improving a basic function … Continue reading

Posted in Inducement to Infringe, Patent Eligibility (101), Section 101 (see also Patentability), Software, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Revised FC opinion maintains invalidity of one independent claim as claiming a natural law and nothing more but vacates and remands DC invalidity decision regarding second independent claim as including “positioning” limitation”

American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, et al. Docket No. 2018-1763 NEWMAN, TARANTO, STOLL October 3, 2019 (revised July 30, 2020) Update (July 30, 2020): Original FC opinion affirmed the DC decision that AA’s claims are ineligible … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability | Leave a comment

DC patent ineligibility holding for Illumina’s fetal DNA-related claims again reversed

Illumina, Inc., Sequenom, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2019-1419 LOURIE, MOORE, REYNA March 17, 2020 Update (August 3, 2020): In a revision of its March 17, 2020 opinion reversing the DC’s 101 ineligibility decision, the FC … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability | Leave a comment

Uniloc claim ineligible under § 101 as abstract, claim includes “no specific asserted improvements”

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC Docket No. 2019-2048 MOORE, O’MALLEY, TARANTO May 13, 2020 Non-Precedential Brief Summary: DC finding of patent ineligibility under § 101 affirmed (abstract idea since claim includes “no specific asserted improvements”). Summary: Uniloc appealed … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Software | Leave a comment