In an ongoing set of disputes in Oregon between farmers and corporations that hold GMO patents, farmers may be given a new tool. Oregon House Bill 2739[1] “allows a cause of action against the patent holder for a genetically engineered organism present on land without permission of the owner or lawful occupant”.
The technical nature of a claimed improvement is central to the evaluation of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Two recent district court opinions illustrate that whether or not the claims describe an improvement in the functioning of a computer itself can be determinative.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued their opinion on Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands on Wednesday, March 22. Should fashion designers rejoice or be fearful? That depends. Designers who repeatedly have original fashion designs copied by others should start rejoicing. On the other hand, those designers that make their bread and butter by copying others fashion designs may need to revamp their business plan.
Nearly 40 years ago, the Supreme Court held in Diamond v. Diehr that while patent claims directed solely to abstract ideas, such as mathematical formulas, are not patent eligible, a claim containing a mathematical formula would be patent eligible if it “implements or applies that formula in a structure or process which, when considered as a whole, is performing a function which that patent laws are designed to protect.”
The PTAB issued an order applying collateral estoppel to determine that one purported owner of U.S. Patent 7,215,752 and U.S. Patent 7,844,041 (the “challenged patents”) had no authority to act as the patent owner in Microsoft Corp. v. Global Technologies, Inc., IPR2016-00663 and IPR2016-00669 (P.T.A.B. March 21, 2017).
Airwair, the owner of the Dr. Martens brand, recently launched a series of lawsuits in the Northern District of California to enforce the trade dress of its “iconic boots and shoes.” One lawsuit was filed in October against Wanted Shoes, and one more recently in February against the Steve Madden brand.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that Biogen’s patent on treating Multiple Sclerosis (“MS”) with a certain dose amount was not obvious because the clinical efficacy exhibited by administering this dose amount was unexpected. Coalition for Affordable Drugs V LLC v. Biogen MA Inc., IPR 2015-01993, Paper 63 (P.T.A.B., March 21, 2017).
On March 13, 2017, the use of Novartis cell cycle inhibitor Kisqali® (ribociclib, LEE011) in combination with an aromatase inhibitor was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a first-line treatment for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer.
After the Supreme Court case of Alice v. CLS Bank in 2014, the Patent Office has issued a series of examination guidelines and examples to guide examiners and patent practitioners in determining patent eligible subject matter. On December 15, 2016, the Patent Office issued its latest set of example inventions and corresponding patent claims, along with guidance on application of current §101 case law in determining subject matter eligibility of the claims.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued concurrent final written decisions upholding the validity of all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,141,154 in Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan. Inc. IPR2015-01979, Paper 62 (P.T.A.B., March 15, 2017) and IPR2016-00151, Paper 51 (P.T.A.B., March 15, 2017).
