Fenwick & West LLP

Website:https://www.fenwick.com/
Follow:

Latest from Fenwick & West LLP - Page 2

Lexblog 4.18.18
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…
Lexblog 4.6.18
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…
Lexblog 3.6.18
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…
Lexblog 3.6.18
In my own prosecution practice I’ve noted a recent uptick in the allowance rate of many examiners in the 36XX art units, with several examiners that had hitherto never allowed a single case allowing multiple cases during calendar year 2017.  This piqued my interest, and I decided to conduct a more robust statistical evaluation to see whether my personal experience would bear out more generally. Signs of Recovery My evaluation computed the aggregate allowance-to-abandonment ratio…
Lexblog 2.20.18
Do you remember obviousness before KSR v. Teleflex? To invalidate, the rule went, one must find an express rationale for combining references (a teaching, suggestion or motivation). The KSR ruling reminded us that the TSM test was too rigid—the proper analysis should more flexibly evaluate obviousness with the skilled artisan in mind, without rigid requirements for these rationales in the references themselves. If we knew how to more flexibly identify rationales for obviousness post-KSR,…
I was reminded of this question, often posed by my dad to remind me not to become a slave to statistics, by two dramatic things that happened last week. On the one hand, at the IAM 2017 Patent Law and Policy conference in Washington DC, investors spoke about waning interest in the U.S. market given the increasing frequency of patent invalidations. On the other hand, the Nasdaq composite index (consisting of 86% U.S. companies) hit…
Global Communication
The recent decision in General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha denying the petitioner’s requests for a rehearing provided a “baseline” of factors to be considered as to the limited circumstances when second — or “follow-on” — petitions are likely to be successful in Patent Trial and Appeal Board trials. The petitioner in General Plastic filed two inter partes review petitions, each challenging one patent. The PTAB denied institution on the merits. The petitioner then sought rehearing, which was denied.…
IPR_Blog3
The recent Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision in General Plastic Industrial v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha (PTAB September 6, 2017; Paper 19) has caused many commentators to note that patent owners should be pleased with the decision as favorable to them. Indeed, the PTAB articulated that “multiple, staggered petition filings, such as those here, are an inefficient use of the inter partes review process and the Board’s resources.” However, historically less than 50% of follow-on…
This third article in the “Surviving Alice” series[1] examines how the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board has responded to the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2014 Alice decision[2].  It also shows how applicants can use the PTAB’s recent decisions to substantially increase their chances of success before the board.  We look at appeals coming out of the USPTO’s business method work groups 3620, 3680 and 3690. Applicants have had a difficult time…
IPR_Blog8 - deep green
As we mark the fifth anniversary of the effective date of Patent Trial and Appeal Board trials on September 16, we find that the early years of the practice have been a learning experience both for the PTAB and for PTAB practitioners. The PTAB had some initial growing pains when the new procedures began, with the number of petitions received far exceeding the number expected. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office requested and received much…