MEDICINES COMPANY v. HOSPIRA, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P, en banc) – Manufacturing services by a supplier does not trigger an on sale bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)

by | Jul 11, 2016 | [sub] offer for sale, Prior Art

The mere sale of manufacturing services by a contract manufacturer to an inventor to create embodiments of a patented product for the inventor does not constitute a “commercial sale” of the invention. Here, for example, no on sale bar was found to be triggered by the...

RAPID LITIGATION MANAGEMENT v. CELLZDIRECT, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – A claim is not merely “directed to” a law of nature if the end result of the process is new and useful

by | Jul 5, 2016 | [sub] Alice step one, Subject Matter Eligibility

A claim is not merely “directed to” a law of nature under Alice step one if the end result of the process is new and useful. Here, for example, claims reciting a new and useful laboratory technique for preserving hepatocyte liver cells were found to be patent-eligible...

BASCOM GLOBAL INTERNET v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – An “inventive concept” can be found in a non-conventional arrangement of known, conventional pieces

by | Jun 27, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility

An “inventive concept” establishing subject matter eligibility can be found in a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of otherwise known, conventional pieces. Here, for example, an inventive concept was found in the installation of an Internet-content...

IMMERSION CORPORATION v. HTC CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Filing a continuation application on the same day as its parent application issues does not defeat priority

by | Jun 21, 2016 | [sub] priority, Formal Requirements

Filing a continuation application on the same day as its parent application issues is sufficient to satisfy the “before the patenting” requirement for claiming priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120. Here, for example, the fact that the patent being asserted was filed on the...

CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC V. LEE (S. Ct. 2016) (P) – The decision to institute IPR is non-appealable and the broadest reasonable interpretation is acceptable

by | Jun 20, 2016 | [sub] inter partes review, PTO Procedure

The PTO’s decision to institute an inter partes review is generally non-appealable, at least “where the grounds for attacking the decision to institute inter partes review consist of questions that are closely tied to the application and interpretation of statutes...