Ip spotlight news from the intersection of intellectual property and business law h gas l gas brennwert

###########

Historically, inventors who assign a patent to a company or other entity have been barred from later challenging the patent’s validity under the doctrine of “assignor estoppel.” This common-law doctrine has been in place for years. However, a new Federal Circuit decision scales it back by holding that assignor estoppel cannot stop certain inter partes review (IPR) proceedings filed by inventors with the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB).

In Arista Networks v. gas leak chicago Cisco Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Nov. 9, 2018), the court considered an appeal from the PTAB decision in an IPR proceeding. In the case, a company founded by an inventor (who was a former employee of the patent holder) argued that certain claims of the patent were obvious in view of prior art. While acknowledging that assignor estoppel is a “rule well settled by 45 years of judicial consideration and conclusion,” the court found that in the America Invents Act reveals Congress’ intent for a different rule in IPR proceedings. electricity and magnetism physics definition Specifically, since 35 U.S.C. §311(a) states that any “person who is not an owner of the patent” may file an IPR petition, the court ruled that an inventor who has assigned his or her interest — and who therefore is no longer an owner of the patent — may file an IPR petition that challenges validity of the patent.

In Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Int’l Ltd.(Fed. Cir. electricity units calculator in pakistan Apr. 13 2018), the decision involved U.S. Patent 8,586,610, which is directed to a method of trating a patient who is suffering from schizophrenia with iloperidone. The representative claims included the steps of performing a genotypic assay on the patient, and administering one of multiple dosages of iloperidone to the patient depending on the results of the assay.

The defendant argued that the claims were not patent-eligible “because they are directed to a natural relationship between iloperidone, CYP2D6 metabolism, and QT prolongation, and add nothing inventive to those natural laws and phenomena.” The patent holder argued that while the claims may “touch upon” laws of nature, they are not directed to any law of nature.

The court agreed with the patent holder, nothing that while the “inventors recognized the relationships between iloperidone [and certain natural phenomena,] that is not what they claimed. electricity units to kwh They claimed an application of that relationship. gas exchange in the lungs is facilitated by Unlike the claim at issue in Mayo [v. Prometheus], the claims here require a treating doctor to administer iloperidone in the amount of either (1) 12 mg/day or less or (2) between 12 mg/day to 24 mg/day, depending on the result of a genotyping assay.” Thus, the court found that the “patent claims are ‘a new way of using an existing drug’ that is safer for patients because it reduces the risk of QTc prolongation,” rather than purely a law of nature.

The Vanda decision can be a useful reference point for applicants who seek to claim personalized medicine delivery methods. The court’s discussion of claims that touch on, but are not directed to, laws of nature may be helpful for those who are inventing new and useful methods that rely on laws of nature, but which aren’t inherently laws of nature on their own.

More and more companies who offer blockchain and other next generation cybersecurity technologies are seeking patents to help protect their competitive position. jokes gas prices The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Technology Center 2400, which covers networking, multiplexing, cable and security technologies, includes over 200 Patent Examiners who focus on security technologies. TC 2400 issued over 33,000 patents in 2017. During this period, the USPTO’s overall allowance rate was 59.4%.

Despite this apparent boom, patent applications covering cybersecurity technologies have faced increasing scrutiny since the June 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Alice Corporation Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l. gas house edwards In Alice, the Court found that a software implementation of an escrow arrangement was not eligible for patenting in the U.S. because it merely involved implementing an “abstract idea” on a computer. The Court did not define the term “abstract idea” other than to describe it as a building block of human ingenuity, or a fundamental concept, including concepts that involve a “fundamental economic practice.”

Since then, the USPTO has issued several guidance documents, and lower courts have issued several opinions, describing when software is and (more often) is not eligible for patenting under Section 101 of the Patent Act. The USPTO typically denies, and courts often strike down, patent applications and patents covering methods of manipulating data, completing financial transactions, and algorithms that do not require any particular hardware other than a general-purpose computer.

Patent applications that focus on financial applications of blockchain technologies often face patent-eligibility hurdles. A search of the USPTO’s Patent Application Information Retrieval (PIR) system indicated that as of January 2018, over 90% of the published applications and issued patents having the term “blockchain” and any combination of “cryptocurrency,” “coin,” or “currency” in the claims were assigned to the USPTO’s Technology Center 3600. (TC 3600 includes the USPTO’s business methods examining unit.) Over 80% of these patents and patents applications received a Section 101 rejection on first action. In addition, the allowance rate in TC 3600 remains far below that of the USPTO’s overall statistics.