Are 3D Printed Tissues and Organs Patentable?

It has been long established, and recently codified in the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), that no one is able to obtain a patent on any part of the human body. Examiners are taught to issue 35 U.S.C. 101 and AIA § 33(a) rejections even if claims are directed towards devices that are “attached to” parts of the human body and recommend applicants change the language to “configured to be attached” or something similar so Continue Reading →

The Legislative Response to Patent Trolls

Patent litigation could reach an all-time high in 2015. Sixty-eight percent of patent lawsuits filed this year were filed by patent trolls, defined by one law professor as “patent owners who do not provide end products or services themselves, but who do demand royalties as a price for authorizing the work of others.”[1] Recently, legislation has been introduced in Congress to stop the trolls—also known as non-practicing entities (NPEs), patent assertion entities (PAEs), or patent monetization Continue Reading →

Google Continues Aggressive Move into Robotics

Following an aggressive strategy to acquire numerous robotics companies, Google is continuing its push into the robotics field by seeking valuable patent rights. While traditionally known for its Internet search algorithm, Google has sought to create product lines of hardware, with varying degrees of success. The Android has captured a substantial portion of the smartphone market. Google’s driverless car, while apparently high-functioning in tests, may still be illegal in the vast majority of states (though Continue Reading →

Interpreting the BPCIA – Is the “Patent Dance” Mandatory?

Background Biologics are a type of therapeutics derived from, or made by, the biological processes of a living organism, such as human cells, animals, microorganisms, or yeast.1 Examples of biologics include some vaccines, blood or blood components, hormones, and antibodies. Unlike standard chemical drugs, which are relatively small molecules, biologics are often large and complex molecules that are not easily produced through synthetic manufacturing pathways. Due to their production mechanism, it is difficult to create Continue Reading →

Claim Construction Under Teva: How Much Deference?

The claims of a patent define the scope of the exclusive right granted to the patentee. Claims should be written such that a person of ordinary skill in the art can understand the boundaries of the invention. The language, which can sometimes be ambiguous, typically consists of a mix of ordinary languages as well as technical and legal jargon. Thus, an important step for courts, in resolving patent infringement disputes, is the interpretation of the Continue Reading →

Inconsistent Judgments on the Breadth of CBM Review?

Guest Post by Jeffrey Berkowitz and Jonathan R.K. Stroud  | If you are looking for clarity on what qualifies as a “Covered Business Method” for review under Section 18 of the AIA (America Invents Act), the PTAB’s (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) decisions offer little guidance. Congress established the PTAB to provide a more effective, efficient, and consistent review of issued patents. But the PTAB has a ways to go as far as consistency is concerned. Continue Reading →

A Not-So-Obvious Threat to Pharmaceutical Patent Portfolios

I.  INTRODUCTION A bill working its way through Congress seeks to curb so-called abusive patent litigation tactics. But a less sensational provision warrants close attention, particularly from the pharmaceutical industry. The provision, if passed, could threaten issued patents in ways parties don’t expect. The recent “Innovation Act”1 that the House passed in December2 and its Senate companion bill3 both seek to codify the judicial doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (ODP). At first glance the change Continue Reading →

En Banc Federal Circuit Opts for Status Quo as it Upholds Cybor No-Deference Rule

Claim construction is arguably the most crucial aspect of a patent infringement case. As some prominent legal scholars and practitioners note, “[claim construction] is central to evaluation of infringement and validity, and can affect or determine the outcome of other significant issues such as unenforceability, enablement, and remedies.” To date, there have been three important claim construction cases. In Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996), the Supreme Court, while not categorizing claim construction as Continue Reading →

New Patent Law Cheered by Large Corporations May Prove Beneficial to Small Entities As Well

On December 5, 2013, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3309, the “Innovation Act” sponsored by Representative Bob Goodlatte of Virginia. The law has moved quickly through committee and made it to the floor of the house in just over a month. The bill has been interpreted as an attack on Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), more commonly known as patent trolls, and numerous commentators have addressed the potential implications of the bill’s modification of infringement suits Continue Reading →

STLR Link Roundup – November 7, 2013

High-Tech, “Green” Cars Could Be the Next IP Battleground In the last five years, the number of patents filed per quarter increased from 20 to 90 by automobile manufacturers. These patents all relate to hybrid or electrical vehicle technologies. Automobile manufacturers are worried that the litigation war affecting the smartphone industry will spread to electric and hybrid vehicles. The automobile industry has been steadily expanding, and questions by potential consumers about battery reliability, driving range, Continue Reading →