In Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, No. 2023-2054 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2025), the Federal Circuit upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision holding that U.S. Patent No. 9,803,176 (“the ’176 patent”) was not inherently anticipated by a prior art process, because the prior art process did not inevitably result in the claimed cell marker expression profile.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Clarifies Anticipation Analysis for Product-By-Process Claims

In a significant decision, the Federal Circuit reversed the U.S. International Trade Commission’s (ITC) finding that claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,508,502 (502 Patent) were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The opinion addresses critical issues in patent eligibility jurisprudence, particularly regarding composition-of-matter claims and provides additional clarity for patent owners facing § 101 challenges.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Clarifies § 101 Patent Eligibility for Composition-of-Matter Claims

The U.S. Supreme Court has once again been urged to revisit 35 U.S.C. § 101, the statute governing patent eligibility. Audio Evolution Diagnostics, Inc. (AED) filed a petition for writ of certiorari, challenging the Federal Circuit’s summary affirmance under Rule 36 of a ruling that invalidated its patents under the Alice/Mayo framework. Should the SCOTUS take up the case, this presents an opportunity for the Court to clarify the boundaries of patent eligibility and address concerns over the Federal Circuit’s handling of such cases.Continue Reading Patent Eligibility: The Call for Supreme Court Clarity and for an End to Summary Affirmances

The U.S. Copyright Office’s January 2025 report on AI and copyrightability reaffirms the longstanding principle that copyright protection is reserved for works of human authorship. Outputs created entirely by generative artificial intelligence (AI), with no human creative input, are not eligible for copyright protection. The Office offers a framework for assessing human authorship for works involving AI, outlining three scenarios: (1) using AI as an assistive tool rather than a replacement for human creativity, (2) incorporating human-created elements into AI-generated output, and (3) creatively arranging or modifying AI-generated elements.Continue Reading The Copyright Office’s Latest Guidance on AI and Copyrightability

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Torrent Pharma Inc., No. 23-2218 (Fed. Cir. 2025) — On January 10, 2025, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s opinion that claims of a Novartis patent are invalid for lack of adequate written description, but affirmed the district court’s finding that the claims were not proven invalid for lacking enablement or being obvious over the asserted prior art. The Federal Circuit emphasized that the proper analysis for enablement and written description challenges is focused on the claims and after-arising technology need not be enabled or described in the specification—even when the after-arising technology is found to infringe the claims because the issues of patentability and infringement are distinct. “It is only after the claims have been construed without reference to the accused device that the claims, as so construed, are applied to the accused device to determine infringement.”Continue Reading Federal Circuit Highlights the Importance of Separating Claim Construction and Infringement Analysis When Dealing with After-Arising Technology

This case examines the application of trademark functionality doctrine in the medical device industry, specifically addressing whether the pink color of ceramic hip components can be protected as a trademark. The case provides important guidance on how courts evaluate functionality claims and the intersection between patent and trademark protection for product features.Continue Reading Ceramtec GMBH v. Coorstek Biocermanics LLC

In Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd., No. 2024-1061 (Fed. Cir. August 13, 2024), the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court of Delaware’s invalidity determination of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,741,356 (“the ’356 patent”) for obviousness-type double patenting. The Federal Circuit also reversed the district court’s invalidity determination of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,007,179 (“the ’179 patent”), 11,090,291 (“the ’291 patent”), 11,160,792 (“the ’792 patent”), and 11,311,516 (“the ’516 patent”) for lack of written description.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Emphasizes Role of Filing Dates, Reversing Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Invalidation

As previously reported (here and here), some Delaware courts have recently declined to “blue pencil,” i.e., modify and narrow overbroad restrictive covenants. Instead, they have stricken in their entirety covenants deemed overbroad and declined to enforce them. On December 10, 2024, in Sunder Energy, LLC v. Tyler Jackson, et al., the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed that Delaware courts have the discretion to decline to blue pencil overbroad restrictive covenants, even if the defendant’s conduct would violate a more narrowly circumscribed covenant. Continue Reading Delaware Supreme Court Refuses to Enforce Noncompete Against Company Founder Who Joined Competitor

This case addresses the application of issue preclusion in relation to the validity of three patents. In particular, this case focuses on the implications of decisions made during the dismissal of pending litigations and examines whether these decisions render judgments final, justifying the application of issue preclusion to invalidate concurrently asserted patents.Continue Reading Koss Corporation v. Bose Corporation

Miller Mendel Inc. filed a lawsuit against the City of Anna, Texas (“the City”), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of Claims 1, 5, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,043,188 (the “’188 patent”). The ’188 patent primarily pertains to a software system designed to manage pre-employment background investigation processes. Specifically, Claim 1 exemplifies a computerized method that involves: (1) receiving data related to an applicant; (2) storing new applicant information; (3) transmitting an applicant hyperlink; (4) receiving an electronic response from the applicant; (5) determining a reference class; (6) selecting a reference set; (7) transmitting a reference hyperlink; (8) receiving an electronic response from the reference; (9) storing the electronic response from the reference; and (10) generating a recommended reference list.Continue Reading Another Example of Ineligible Software Patent Claims