CAFC Rejects Inventors Groups’ Bid to Clarify Patent-Cover Language Post-eBay

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Friday issued a precedential decision denying a number of inventors’ associations standing to sue the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for failing to amend alleged inaccurate language on the cover of issued U.S patents. District Judge Rachel Kovner of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation, authored the precedential opinion of the court.

Other Barks & Bites for Friday, August 21: US Inventor Lacks Standing for Patent Language Challenge; D.C. Circuit Upholds CMS’ Single-Source Drug Interpretation; and Ninth Circuit Deepens Split on Attorney’s Fees Under Lanham Act

This week in Other Barks & Bites: the Fourth Circuit affirms an injunction against a scheme to divert Turkish-label versions of Biktarvy into the U.S. for sale; the Federal Circuit nixes US Inventor’s challenge to the “right to exclude others” language printed on issued U.S. patents; SK Biopharmaceutical agrees to allow generic Xcopri to enter the U.S. market by 2032; and more.

Latest Section 101 Cert Petition Before SCOTUS Says CAFC Answered Two-Step Test with Single Inquiry

Yesterday, a petition for writ of certiorari was filed at the U.S. Supreme Court taking aim at the federal judiciary’s conflation of subject matter eligibility with other areas of the patent statute, a growing concern in U.S. patent law since the Court decided Alice v. CLS Bank International (2014). Arguing that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit used a single observation to answer both steps of the Alice/Mayo inquiry, the petitioner urges the Court to correct the Federal Circuit’s replacement of its flexible two-step Section 101 framework with rigid proxies that avoid the evidentiary safeguards of other patentability statutes.

When the Quantum-AI Invention Stack Speeds Up Discovery, Patent Practice Has to Move Upstream

Artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing are compressing the invention cycle itself. That compression is no longer theoretical. Discovery Loop, a new public benefit corporation founded by leading former Google and Google DeepMind researchers, has announced a mission to automate experimental loops of the scientific method; the AItonomy Foundation similarly frames automated experimental loops as a path to accelerating science and engineering. The trend is also visible in Faraday, a recent AI model for automated scientific discovery that links model-driven hypothesis generation with iterative experimentation and R&D workflows, further illustrating how AI systems are moving from passive analysis toward active participation in the scientific method.

The ‘Captain Obvious’ Approach: What the Nielsen Decision Reveals About the U.S. Obviousness Inquiry

About 20 years ago, Hotels.com had a series of commercials starring a character called “Captain Obvious.” This character would make observations that were funny because they were apparent to all. And that is what non-patent lawyers think of when it comes to something that is obvious. That is also the approach taken in a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) cases, i.e. the “Captain Obvious” approach. Specifically, the recent Nielsen (The Nielsen Co. (US), LLC, v. TVision Insights, Inc., —

Fresenius Says to Congress, ‘Do as I Say Not as I Do’ on Drug Patents

Congress frequently seeks advice from experts in a wide variety of industries. In theory, this expert testimony helps lawmakers craft better, more nuanced legislation. Sometimes these “expert” witnesses aren’t especially knowledgeable. Even worse, sometimes they mislead lawmakers in the hope of advancing legislation that benefits their own companies, even if it hurts the country. That’s precisely what happened in June, when the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing to investigate whether patenting practices in the pharmaceutical industry are driving up drug prices.

CAFC Says NPE Must Show Licensees Complied with Patent Marking Provision

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today, authored by Chief Judge Moore, first affirming a district court’s orders dismissing a patent infringement complaint without granting leave to amend and awarding attorney’s fees, and secondly, dismissing an appeal of attorney sanctions for lack of jurisdiction. VDDP, LLC sued Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleging infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 9,426,452, relating to “electrically controlled spectacles.”… The district court dismissed the case with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6), denied the motion for leave to amend as futile, denied VDDP’s motion to amend the judgment under Rule 59(e), awarded Volkswagen $207,543.60 in attorney’s fees, and sanctioned VDDP’s counsel, William Peterson Ramey III, under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, holding him and VDDP jointly and severally liable for the attorney’s fees.

Varsity Sponsors

From the IPWatchdog Institute

Subscribe to IPWatchdog

This is the best way to stay informed. We send a daily roundup of our latest news, press releases, and events.

Get Email Updates