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
Following the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Motorola Solutions Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corp. Ltd., the United States may become a destination venue for resolution of global trade secret disputes. The Seventh Circuit held that U.S. trade secret law applies extraterritorially—reaching the theft of trade secrets outside the United States—so long as “an act in furtherance” of the offense was committed in the United States. The court held, for example, that marketing products in the United States qualified as an “act in furtherance” if the products were made using stolen trade secrets. Once an “act in furtherance” is identified, damages can be based on a company’s global sales. Motorola, for example, resulted in an award of $135.8 million in compensatory damages based on Hytera’s worldwide sales. Similar to the global impact of U.S. antitrust and anti-bribery laws, the Seventh Circuit’s decision highlights the critical importance to companies of considering U.S. trade secret laws. For example, if a company suffers the theft of its trade secrets anywhere in the world, it should consider the United States as a possible venue for bringing a legal claim. Conversely, companies should take measures to train employees and ensure compliance with U.S. trade secret laws even if the employees are located outside of the United States.Continue Reading Companies Should Take Notice of the Extraterritorial Reach of U.S. Trade Secret Law
On June 22, 2023, Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) introduced the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023, which seeks to clarify the jurisprudence surrounding 35 U.S.C. § 101. The current patent eligibility requirements under Section 101 have been evolving by judicially-created exceptions stemming from the Supreme Court’s rulings in Alice and Mayo, and numerous Federal Circuit decisions that have interpreted the Alice and Mayo framework. Those opinions have, on occasion, appeared to provide inconsistent guidance that has led to continued confusion regarding section 101’s application.Continue Reading Senators Propose New Legislation to Clarify Patent Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101