CPIP Scholars Ask Federal Circuit to Fix Patent Eligibility Doctrine in Cleveland Clinic Appeal

Last week, a group of CPIP scholars filed an amicus brief in Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, a case currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The patents at issue cover diagnostic tests used to assess a person’s risk of developing cardiovascular disease. The U.S. Patent & … Continue reading “CPIP Scholars Ask Federal Circuit to Fix Patent Eligibility Doctrine in Cleveland Clinic Appeal”

CPIP Founder Adam Mossoff Files Amicus Brief on Behalf of 27 Law Professors in Oil States

CPIP Founder Adam Mossoff filed an amicus brief today on behalf of 27 law professors in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, a patent case pending in the Supreme Court. Oil States is challenging the constitutionality of proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to determine the validity of an issued patent. The challenge … Continue reading “CPIP Founder Adam Mossoff Files Amicus Brief on Behalf of 27 Law Professors in Oil States”

CPIP Scholars File Amicus Brief Urging Consideration of Claimed Inventions as a Whole

Last week, CPIP Senior Scholar Adam Mossoff and I filed an amicus brief on behalf of 15 law professors, including CPIP’s Devlin Hartline, Chris Holman, Sean O’Connor, Kristen Osenga, and Mark Schultz. We urge the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in TDE Petroleum v. AKM Enterprise and reaffirm that any analysis of an invention must be of the claimed invention … Continue reading “CPIP Scholars File Amicus Brief Urging Consideration of Claimed Inventions as a Whole”

Intellectual Property Backgrounds of President Trump’s Potential Supreme Court Nominees

By Andrew Baluch[1] & Devlin Hartline President Donald Trump will soon announce his nominee to fill the vacancy left at the Supreme Court by late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. On September 23, 2016, the Trump campaign revealed that there are twenty-one candidates under consideration for the nomination. Below is a summary of the intellectual property … Continue reading “Intellectual Property Backgrounds of President Trump’s Potential Supreme Court Nominees”

Letter on FCC Set-Top Box Regulation Once Again Confuses the Issue

Last week, a group of law professors wrote a letter to the acting Librarian of Congress in which they claim that the current FCC proposal to regulate cable video navigation systems does not deprive copyright owners of the exclusive rights guaranteed by the Copyright Act. The letter repeats arguments from response comments they  filed along with … Continue reading “Letter on FCC Set-Top Box Regulation Once Again Confuses the Issue”

Federal Circuit Brings Some Clarity and Sanity Back to Patent Eligibility Doctrine

By Adam Mossoff and Kevin Madigan Following the Supreme Court’s four decisions on patent eligibility for inventions under § 101 of the Patent Act, there has been much disruption and uncertainty in the patent system. The patent bar and most stakeholders in the innovation industries have found the Supreme Court’s decisions in Alice Corp. v. … Continue reading “Federal Circuit Brings Some Clarity and Sanity Back to Patent Eligibility Doctrine”

The One Year Anniversary: The Aftermath of #AliceStorm

The following post, by Robert R. Sachs, first appeared on the Bilski Blog, and it is reposted here with permission. It’s been one year since the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. On its face the opinion was relatively conservative, cautioning courts to “tread carefully” before invalidating patents, and emphasizing that the … Continue reading “The One Year Anniversary: The Aftermath of #AliceStorm”

Federal Circuit Threatens Innovation: Dissecting the Ariosa v. Sequenom Opinion

By Patent Publius Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Ariosa v. Sequenom, a closely-watched biotechnology case with significant repercussions for patent-eligibility analysis generally. Unfortunately, the Federal Circuit misapplies the Supreme Court’s analytical framework from Mayo v. Prometheus, striking down Sequenom’s important innovation for the prenatal diagnosis of fetal abnormalities. The shame … Continue reading “Federal Circuit Threatens Innovation: Dissecting the Ariosa v. Sequenom Opinion”

Supreme Court Recognizes that Patents are Property

By Adam Mossoff In an important decision handed down today, the Supreme Court explicitly recognized that patents are property secured by the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. In Horne v. Department of Agriculture, the Court held that the Takings Clause imposes a “categorical duty” on the government to pay just compensation whether it takes personal or … Continue reading “Supreme Court Recognizes that Patents are Property”

Alice Gets the Most Important Question Right

By far the most important takeaway from today’s Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank  is the Court’s acknowledgment that “many computer-implemented claims are formally addressed to patent-eligible subject matter.”  Despite failing to alleviate the profound confusion caused by its recent §101 analysis in cases like Bilski, Myriad, Mayo, and plenty of earlier … Continue reading “Alice Gets the Most Important Question Right”