On October 23, 2014, U.S. Congressman Goodlatte (R-VA) introduced the “Innovation Act,” which is intended “to make improvements and technical corrections” to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) “and for other purposes.” The bulk of the Act focuses on patent litigation, but it also includes significant changes to the new patent trial proceedings (inter partes review, post-grant review, and covered business method patent review), and several miscellaneous substantive changes to other aspects of U.S. patent law. A hearing before the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled for Tuesday, October 29, 2013. Although patent reform has been a bipartisan effort, it is not clear whet [...]
The first set of “technical corrections” to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) was enacted on January 14, 2013. While this legislation did make “technical” corrections to some of the new AIA provisions, it also made substantive changes to both the AIA and other provisions of U.S. patent law, including the Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) statute. This article provides an overview of the substantive changes to the AIA embodied in this law.
Technical Corrections To The AIA
The law at issue stemmed from HR 6621, is titled “To correct and improve certain provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,” and also is referred to as the “Technical Corrections Act.”
Changes Relating [...]
Recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and USPTO decisions underscore the potential value of challenging a granted U.S. patent in a USPTO proceeding, even if the patent already has been held infringed and/or not invalid in district court litigation. In Fresenius, USA Inc. v. Baxter International, Inc., the Federal Circuit interpreted the ex parte reexamination statutes (35 USC §§ 301-307) as providing that the final cancellation of claims in a reexamination proceeding is binding on concurrent litigation proceedings, as long as the litigation is still pending. In SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Group, Inc., the USPTO found that the challenged claims were inva [...]
On June 13, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in the “ACLU/Myriad” gene patents case (Association For Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.). In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Thomas, the Court held that “a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but that cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring.” Thus, the Court held that human genes may not be patented.
This case stems from a declaratory judgment action brought to challenge certain claims in seven patents related to Myriad’s discovery of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, and t [...]
On June 4, 2013, the U.S. White House issued a press release announcing its “Task Force on High-Tech Patent Issues.” The press release outlined five executive actions and seven legislative recommendations “designed to protect innovators from frivolous litigation and ensure the highest-quality patents in our system.” The target of these initiatives are so-called “patent trolls,” whom the White House asserts are responsible for 62 percent of all patent infringement suits in the United States.
The press release set the stage for these initiatives as follows:
[I]nnovators continue to face challenges from Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs), companies that, in the President’s words “d [...]
In a divided en banc decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that the claims at issue in CLS Bank v. Alice Corporation are invalid under the “abstract idea” exception to 35 USC § 101. While a majority of the judges agreed that the method and computer-readable medium claims are invalid, they disagreed as to why. Further, the court was evenly split as to whether the systems claims are invalid. (With no majority agreement on that issue, the district court decision is affirmed). Even if this case makes its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, patent-eligibility will remain a murky area of U.S. patent law for the foreseeable future.