Is a patent directed to electronic communications between computing devices patent eligible?  As with many legal questions, the answer to this question is not black and white.  In the recent Fitbit, Inc. v. Aliphcom decision, the district court for the Northern district of California held that claims in Fitbit’s patent directed to a specific approach to pairing a wireless device to client or server is patent eligible.

The Federal Circuit held that a rat study in a provisional application and a conversion method in an uncited reference did not support the claimed human dosage form in Los Angeles Biomed. Research Inst. v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 16-1518 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 28, 2017).  The Federal Circuit further held that claims directed to an underlying condition should not be construed broadly to treat symptoms of that condition.

The Federal Circuit held that the PTAB may consider legal conclusions of obviousness by experts, but the expert papers must make adequate factual findings and provide a satisfactory explanation as to determinations of obviousness in Icon Health and Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., No. 16-1475 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 27, 2017).  

In a final written decision, the Board denied a patent owner’s request for a certificate of correction filed shortly after IPR institution in Douglas Dynamics, L.L.C. v. Meyer Products, LLC, IPR2015-01839, Paper 51 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2017).

With more consumers cutting the cord to their TVs and paying for premium subscriptions or ad blockers to avoid advertising, social media has become an important medium through which advertisers reach the purchasing public. Companies are allocating substantial marketing dollars to advertising on social media platforms, including Instagram, YouTube, Facebook and Snapchat, in the form of social media endorsements.

Obtaining issued patents in the biotechnology space can be a challenge.  Here is a list of ten patent strategies we recommend for biotechnology innovators to increase their odds of obtaining valuable intellectual property from the patent office.

In a final written decision, the PTAB found all challenged claims patent-eligible in Tradestation Group, Inc. v. Trading Tech. Int’l, Inc., CBM2015-00161, Paper 129 (P.TA.B. Feb. 17, 2017), an uncommon result in a CBM proceeding.  But this case is more uncommon still—a dissent filed by one PTAB judge contended for patent ineligibility despite the Federal Circuit previously finding eligibility on the same claims.

The USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has released its January 2017 statistics.  Most notable is the surge in petition filings, particularly inter partes review IPR petition filings.  In January 2017, 246 petitions were filed, 237 of which were IPR petitions.

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision upholding Pozen’s ulcer reducing Vimovo® claims based on unexpected results in Coalition For Affordable Drugs VII LLC v. Pozen Inc., IPR2015-01718, Paper 40 (P.T.A.B., Feb. 21, 2017).

On January 12, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion affirming the judgement that Eli Lilly’s U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 (“the ’209 Patent”) was valid and infringed under the doctrine of induced infringement.  Specifically, the Court relied upon product labeling, which instructs doctors and patients on the dosage ranges and schedules recited in the asserted claims of the ’209 Patent.