Bot M8 LLC, a patent assertion entity, was unsuccessful in its effort to have the Federal Circuit reverse the lower court’s invalidity finding related to one of six different patents asserted against Sony in Northern District of California. In fact,
Stanford University applied for a U.S. patent for statistical methods of predicting haplotype phase. In 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board rejected the application as ineligible subject matter. Last week, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
We are excited to announce that attorney and Patent 213 blog editor, Nicholas J. Landau, was included in the 2021 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® for Patent Law. Firmwide, seven patent attorneys at Bradley are listed by
Late last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit delivered ShoppersChoice.com the affirmation it ordered in Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC (ECT) v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC. In doing so, the court supplied accused infringers with a helpful example
By reversing the lower court’s ruling that the asserted claims were not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in Uniloc v. LG Electronics, the Federal Circuit resurrected Uniloc’s infringement suit against LG Electronics. It also demonstrated what we already know
Last week, the Federal Circuit decided that claims related to a method of fishing that involved evaluating the water to be fished were not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. It is a bit of a head scratcher as to why
Last week, the Federal Circuit confirmed that Idenix Pharmaceuticals will not be the proud recipient of what was previously regarded as the largest damages award ever recorded in a U.S.
patent case. In fact, the majority’s opinion in Idenix Pharmaceuticals
Few subjects have drawn as much interest among patent stakeholders and practitioners as understanding the framework used to determine a patent claim’s eligibility. Courts continue to address different factual situations in applying the two-step test for patent eligibility under 35
The legal meaning of the transition language “consisting essentially of” is well-established in Federal Circuit case law and is generally construed to mean that the composition or formulation (a) necessarily includes the listed ingredients and (b) is open to unlisted
As discussed in a previous blog post, since Mayo v. Prometheus, critics of medical treatment patents have advocated that such patents should be banned from patenting. While such arguments seemed futile based on the consistent position taken by