The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision on September 25 in Zentian Ltd. v. Apple Inc., affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision that found all claims of a speech recognition patent unpatentable as obvious. The court rejected Zentian’s challenge to the PTAB’s construction of the term “feature vector” and affirmed the determination that codewords in a prior art reference fall within that term.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision Friday in The Receivership Estate of AudienceScience Inc. v. Google LLC, affirming a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that granted Google LLC and YouTube LLC judgment on the pleadings on patent ineligibility grounds under 35 U.S.C. Section 101.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a minute order on September 18, in Perlmutter v. Blanche, staying the lawsuit brought by Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter until December 18, 2026. Judge Timothy J. Kelly pointed to the House of Representatives’ June passage of the Legislative Branch Agencies Clarification Act, H.R. 6028, which would designate the Register of Copyrights as an officer “appointed by the President” with the advice and consent of the Senate.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Berkeley*IEOR v. W.W. Grainger Inc., reversing a district court’s grant of summary judgment that a set of profitability-calculation patent claims were eligible under Section 101. The CAFC held that the representative claim is directed to an abstract idea and that the inventive concept identified by the district court, a form of parallel computer processing, is not required by the claim language.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in In re Incept LLC, vacating and remanding a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that had affirmed an examiner’s rejection of a medical catheter patent application as obvious. Since the Board’s obviousness analysis relied on an incorrect construction of the claim term “flow barrier,” the CAFC declined to reach the underlying obviousness question and returned the case to the Board for further proceedings.