Patent Law Updates

Featured Expert Legal Commentary

Bilski v. Kappos: Machine-or-Transformation Test Is Not the Sole Test for Patentability

By Yuri Mikulka, Thomas F. Zuber, and Benjamin C. Deming of Zuber & Taillieu LLP

In a long-awaited opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit Court’s ultimate holding in In Re Bilski, but held that the Federal Circuit’s machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for patentability of a claimed process. Bilski v. Kappos, ___ U.S. ___, 2010 WL 2555192, No. 08-964 (June… More...

More Patent Law Updates

Sort by:
Page 2 of 3 of Patent Law Commentaries
 <  1 2 3 >

Cardiac Pacemakers v. St. Jude: Section 271(f) Does Not Apply to Method Claims

Cardiac Pacemakers Inc. v. St. Jude Medical Inc.  |  October 2, 2009

Following the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2007 Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. decision, the Federal Circuit ruled that 35 U.S.C. Section 217(f) is not applicable to method claims. In Cardiac Pacemakers, the Court expressly overruled its own previous controversial decision in Union Carbide, More...

Abbott Labs v. Sandoz: Defining Infringement for Product-by-Process Claims

Abbott Labs v. Sandoz  |  July 13, 2009

The Federal Circuit has resolved prior inconsistencies in its case law and established a bright line rule to define infringement in product-by-process claims, holding that such infringement requires practice of the claimed process by the alleged infringer. In Abbott Labs v. Sandoz, 566 F.3d 1282 More...

In re Kubin: Extending “Obvious to Try” to cDNA Sequence Patents

In re Kubin  |  June 17, 2009

The Federal Circuit court applied the “obvious to try” test from KSR International v. Teleflex Inc. to biotechnology patent applications, and essentially eviscerated the obviousness standard once applied to biotech patents by the Federal Circuit in In re Deuel. While the decision in In re More...

In re Ferguson: Affirming Bilski’s Machine-or-Transformation Test

In re Ferguson  |  May 26, 2009

In one of the first post-Bilski decisions by a Federal Circuit panel, the court confirmed the Bilski holding that business methods do not constitute patentable processes if they fail the machine-or-transformation test. Specifically, in In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359 (Fed Cir. 2009), the Court held More...

Tafas v. Doll: Limits on Continuations Invalid; Other Claim Limits May Be OK

Tafas v. Doll  |  May 18, 2009

The Federal Circuit largely upheld rules promulgated by the PTO to help relieve its enormous backlog of patent applications. The district court had determined that the rules were substantive and therefore beyond the PTO’s legal authority. In Tafas v. Doll, 559 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009), a split More...

Rothman v. Target: Deferring to Jury Finding of Obviousness, But Not of Inequitable Conduct

Rothman v. Target Corp.  |  May 12, 2009

In Rothman v. Target Corp., 556 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit upheld a district court’s refusal to set aside a jury finding that the plaintiff’s patent was invalid due to obviousness, but reversed the trial court on its finding of inequitable conduct by the prosecuting More...

Boston Scientific v. Cordis: Obviousness from Two Separate Embodiments

Boston Scientific Scimed v. Cordis Corp.  |  April 2, 2009

In Boston Scientific v. Cordis, 554 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned both the PTO Examiner and the district court trial jury in invalidating Boston Scientific’s patent claims due to invalidity. Specifically, the appellate court determined that More...

Recent Decisions Alter Venue Strategy In Eastern District of Texas Patent Litigation

In re Volkswagen of America Inc./In re TS Tech USA Corp.  |  March 24, 2009

In the wake of two recent federal appeals cases -- In re Volkswagen of America Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) and In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008) – the Eastern District of Texas has lost some of its steam as the most notable “rocket docket” of patent infringement More...

Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa: No more Point of Novelty Test for Design Patent Infringement

Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa  |  January 13, 2009

In its highly anticipated en banc opinion in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa, 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected the point of novelty test for design patent infringement. The Court held that the “ordinary observer” test set forth in Gorham v. White is More...

In re Bilski: Business Method Patents Take a Hit; State Street Bank Is Out

In re Bilski  |  January 7, 2009

The eagerly-awaited decision in In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) -- issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sitting en banc -- significantly narrowed the scope of patentability for business method and process patents. The Court essentially discounted the More...

Page 2 of 3 of Patent Law Commentaries
 <  1 2 3 >
Advertise with LawUpdates.com

Companies Mentioned

Patent Law

The following companies are mentioned in Patent Law Updates:

Stryker Sales Corp.

SEB S.A.

Abbott Laboratories

Stryker Orthopaedics

Microsoft Corp.

Sandoz, Inc.

Stryker Corp.

i4i Limited Partnership

Sandoz GMBH

Howmedica Osteonics Corp.

Infrastructures for Information Inc.

Astellas Pharma, Inc.

Acumed, LLC

University of Utah Research Foundation

Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd.

Quanta Computer, Inc.

Unites States Patent and Trademark Office

Ranbaxy Laboratories, Ltd.

LG Electronics, Inc.

Myriad Genetics

Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.

Cohesive Technologies, Inc.

Association for Molecular Pathology

Par Pharmaceutical

Waters Corp.

ResQNet.com, Inc.

Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc.

Swisa, Inc.

Lansa, Inc.

Guidant Sales Corp.

Egyptian Goddess, Inc.

Kaplan & Gilman, LLP

Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC

Dror Swisa

Datamars, Inc.

St. Jude Medical, Inc.

Johnson & Johnson, Inc.

Datamars S.A.

Pacesetter, Inc.

Cordis Corp.

Crystal Import Corp.

Exergen Corp.

Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.

Avid Identification Systems, Inc.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Boston Scientific Corp.

Hana Microelectronics Co., Ltd.

Target Corp.

CVS Corp.

Sears Holding Corp.

Additional Resources

Patent Law