With the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trial Practice Guide update released last month, a significant change was made to the substantive filings. In the revised section II.I. (Sur-replies), the following language changes the rules: “Sur-replies to principal briefs (i.e., to a reply to a patent owner response or to a reply to an opposition to a motion to amend) normally will be authorized by the scheduling order entered at institution.” TPG, p. 14. The…
Since our last update in June 2017, all the invalidation averages for decisions finding lack of subject matter eligibility have trended slightly downward in the federal courts. Specifically: The overall percentage of decisions invalidating patents under § 101 since we started tracking statistics in July 2014 has fallen slightly—from 67.5% to 66.0%—year over year. The 12-month and three-month average invalidation rates have likewise fallen (from 64.7% to 61.9%, and from 72.1% to 48.4%, respectively).…
The recent decision in SAS Institute v. Iancu — in combination with the proposed shift from a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard to the Phillips standard for claim construction used in district court — moves trials at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board toward being the most likely forum for first consideration of claim construction and patent validity, and perhaps a shift toward becoming a truer “alternative” to litigation, as Congress envisioned under the America…
Technology Assisted Review (TAR) / Predictive Coding — New Decision Thanks to Hon. (Ret.)  Andrew J. Peck, now Senior Counsel at DLA Piper, I just learned of a hot-off-the-presses (yesterday) Technology Assisted Review decision by the Utah federal district court. For a quote from, and link to, the Entrata decision, check out the recent updates to the TAR / Predictive Coding Library I maintain at this blog site. And while you’re there, you’ll see another…
EU GDPR eDiscovery — Top Ten Tips for Litigators by Robert Brownstone and Tyler Newby (with thanks to Shannon Turner and Sandra Pomeroy) NOT LEGAL ADVICE.  This non-exhaustive Letterman-style list is to help you spot the GDPR’s potential impacts on data collection and production in litigation involving EU persons Overview (10. – 6.) 10.   The European Union (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) went into effect on May 25, 2018.   It applies to the processing…
If the focus on fact finding in Aatrix, Berkheimer, and Exergen from earlier this year helped provide additional clarity on the analysis of “something more,” the SAP America decision, at least to my mind, failed to clarify, and possibly further muddied, the analysis. Reaching This Result Could Have Been Easy First, a representative claim: 1. A method for calculating, analyzing and displaying investment data comprising the steps of: (a) selecting a sample…
In a much-anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held Tuesday in Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group, that inter partes review does not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the seven-justice majority, and Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a concurrence, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Neil Gorsuch penned the dissent, in which he was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, whose dissent was…
My last post focused on definitions for the terms “well-understood,” “routine,” and “conventional”—or W-URC—from the subject matter eligibility test set forth in Mayo and further described in Alice. Those terms relate to one part of the current test only. It seems fair to consider another important term in the test, one that’s considered before even reaching the W-URC issue: Whether the claim is “directed to” patent-ineligible subject matter, e.g., a law of nature. I was particularly reminded of…
The Federal Circuit has now had enough opportunity to address Mayo’s “well-understood, routine, conventional” test that we should have a good understanding of it. We don’t (or at least I don’t). To begin with, the Federal Circuit cases don’t seem to differentiate among these terms. The cases also universally connect the three terms with “and” rather than “or,” but curiously most of the cases don’t seem to actually require all three to be explicitly met for a…
With counterpoint by Gregory Hopewell In reading post-Mayo/Alice decisions, some seem more comfortable than others. I’ve been having a tough time getting my head and heart around a recent decision from Judge Leonard Stark of the District of Delaware.  The case is American Axle & Manufacturing v. Neapco Holdings and Neapco Drivelines.  From the party names alone, this does not appear to be a likely candidate for Section 101 invalidity. The claims that the…