The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment states that private property “shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation.”[1] Intellectual property rights – patents, trademarks, copyrights, and other IP – have long been considered property rights. This belief, however, has been tested by the Supreme Court’s reluctance to specifically define IP as a …
Category: fed circuit watch
opinions by ct appeals for federal circuit (patent, trademark, some copyright)
SCOTUS Grants Certiorari on Appointments Clause Issue
In its orders of October 13, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court granted petitions for writ of certiorari to three cases involving Arthrex, Inc., dealing with the constitutionality of the PTAB’s judges: United States v. Arthrex, Inc. (Docket No. 19-1434), Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc. (Docket No. 19-1452), and Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & …
Method of Preparation Claims Patent-Eligible in Illumina Modified Opinion
On August 3, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a modified opinion in Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc.,[1] reiterating its earlier opinion[2] finding claims directed to method of preparing cell-free fetal DNA in maternal blood as patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. This modified opinion reflected Ariosa’s recent petition …
American Axle Denied en banc Review
On July 31, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied American Axle’s petition for en banc review, in American Axle & Manuf., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC,[1] with those judges seeking review not able to muster a majority of the entire panel. This is the second iteration[2] of appellate review for American …
Trademarks Post-Tam & Brunetti
Two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Matal v. Tam,[1] decided in 2017, and Iancu v. Brunetti,[2] decided this past May, both dealt with registration of trademarks under 15 U.S.C. §1052(a) (§2(a)) that ran afoul of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause. 2(a) reads: No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may …
Prosecution History Estoppel Limits Design Patent Amendments
A fascinating ruling dealing with design patents, amendments made during prosecution, and limitations on claim scope was handed down by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on September 12, 2019 in Curver Luxembourg, Sarl v. Home Expressions Inc..[1] Curver is an important piece in an otherwise scant design patent case law. Curver Luxembourg …
Limitations on State Sovereign Immunity on Venue
The issue of sovereign immunity has been raised several times in recent memory at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, including St. Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharms., Inc.,[1] (discussed on the blog here), and Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. LSI Corp.,[2] (discussed here). Board of Regents of the Univ. of …
Garage Door Tech Not Patent-Eligible
On August 21, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Inds. Co.,[1] that Chamberlain’s U.S. Patent No. 7,224,275 (‘275) directed to wireless communications technology for operating a movable barrier (i.e., garage door opener) was patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. The ‘275 patent is …
Fed Circuit Watch: Claim Construction Before Patent-Eligibility Analysis
There have been several patent-eligibility rulings by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit this year, but on August 16, 2019, the Fed Circuit held that claim construction in-dispute must be resolved before patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101 can be analyzed, in MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC.[1] The somewhat circuitous procedural aspects of this …
Fed Circuit Watch: Valuable Contribution Is Not Necessarily Patent-Eligible
In a strange ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, on July 29, 2019, although publicly released on August 9, 2019, in Genetic Veterinary Scis., Inc. v. Laboklin GmbH & Co KG,[1] the Fed Circuit found that in spite of the claimed invention’s “valuable contribution” to the veterinary sciences, it remained outside …