It has been more than a year since Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., was decided in which four Recentive patents covering machine-learning-generated TV broadcast schedules and network maps —...
On August 21, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Inds. Co., that Chamberlain’s U.S. Patent No. 7,224,275 (‘275) directed to wireless...
On September 18, 2019, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)’s Genome Editing Consortium (GEC) formally sought comments on genome editing, commonly called CRISPR, terminology in...
Two cases decided recently by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit discuss the oft-problematic area of 35 U.S.C. §103, or the nonobviousness requirement. This is the second case, Realtime...
Two cases decided recently by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit discuss the oft-problematic area of 35 U.S.C. §103, or the nonobviousness requirement. AC Technologies S.A. v. Amazon.com,...
An interesting case which revolved around the interplay between differing patent terms, patent term extension under 35 U.S.C. §156, and obviousness-type double patenting was decided on December 7,...
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) seems to have bungled an obviousness analysis (again), and was dinged by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in E.I. DuPont de Nemours v. Synvina...
On September 10, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided Orexo AB v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC, in what turns out to be a fairly straightforward analysis of an obviousness case under...
On September 10, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided Regents of the Univ. of Calif. v. Broad Inst., Inc., in the latest court battle in the CRISPR patent challenge pitting...
On August 27, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handed down Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, in which the rules played an important role in decisions made in the case....