is an intellectual property attorney specializing in patent litigation. He is committed to providing outstanding client service and to helping clients achieve favorable results in complex patent disputes. Mr. Hudnell has served as lead counsel on numerous patent lawsuits in federal court. Mr. Hudnell has successfully represented clients at trial and obtained numerous settlements in his clients’ favor. He has also successfully represented clients in patent trials before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board. Mr. Hudnell earned a B.S. in Operations Research and Industrial Engineering from Cornell University and a J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania.
For more information or to contact Mr. Hudnell, please visit his Firm Profile Page.
Specifically, the petition presents the question: is patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, which Congress did not codify in 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), not a cognizable defense in a patent litigation? The question presented parallels that of the one recently decided by the Supreme Court in SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, 137 S. Ct. 954 (2017). In SCA Hygiene, the Supreme Court examined 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), which enumerates the defenses that may be raised in a patent litigation, and held that laches, which is not recited in § 282(b), is not a defense to patent damages within the statute of limitations set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 286. RPost’s petition asks the Court to again examine § 282(b) in order to determine whether patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, which, like laches, is not recited in § 282(b), is similarly not a defense that may be raised in a patent litigation.