In Natural Alternatives International, Inc. v. Creative Compounds, LLC., Appeal No. 2018-1295, a divided panel of the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a decision by the District Court for the Southern District of California that granted a judgment on the pleading holding the asserted claims invalid as not patent eligibile.
Before Prost, Reyna, Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Summary: Where the preamble of a claim merely identifies an intended use and does not impose a structural requirement, and only the body of the claim identifies an improvement, the applicant’s choice not to use the transitional phrase “wherein the improvement compromises” is also a “powerful reason” to deny the preamble any limiting effect. Further, lack of diligence in reducing an invention to practice cannot be inferred when the invention was put into someone else’s hands for needed testing and there was diligent oversight.
Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Stoll. Appeal from District of Delaware.
Summary: Under step one of Alice, a claim is not directed to an abstract idea when it recites a specific technique to solve a technological problem arising in computer networks and that improvement is bolstered by the specification.
On March 7, 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced a formal agreement, in the form of a memorandum of understanding (MOU), to jointly regulate the production of human food derived from cultured cells of livestock and poultry, including cell-based meat. [1], [2] The FDA is an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the FSIS is an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The MOU follows a joint public meeting held in October 2018 at which the Agencies discussed the use of cell culture technology for human food production, including potential hazards, oversight, and labeling, with representatives of industry, consumer groups, and other stakeholders. [3] The October 2018 meeting resulted in a statement from USDA Secretary Perdue and FDA Commissioner Gottlieb on November 16, 2018, confirming that the Agencies had agreed to joint oversight of this emerging technology. [4]
Before Moore, Reyna, and Wallach. Appeal from the Southern District of California.
Summary: District court improperly held that claims were directed to a natural law where the claims recited a method of treatment requiring a specific and allegedly unconventional dosage of the naturally occurring ingredient.
Before Prost, Dyk, and Moore. Appeal from District of Delaware.
Summary: A district court’s construction of a claim term that is contrary to the plain language of the claims and usage of the term in the specification was erroneous.
On January 30, 2019, the luxury jewelry suppliers Van Cleef & Arpels filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Nice Ice Fine Jewelers, LLC (“Defendant”). Van Cleef & Arpels’ complaint alleges trade dress infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and related claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition under New York common law.
On February 6, 2019, the Federal Circuit decided Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC, affirming a District Court for the District of Massachusetts decision that the claims at issue were patent ineligible for being directed to a natural law.
Before Moore, Taranto, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
https://www.knobbe.com/attorneys/paul-stewartSummary: The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient to demonstrate inherency. Instead, the party alleging inherency must show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught would result in the performance of the questioned function.
Before Prost, Moore, and Wallach. Appeal from the Northern District of Florida.
Summary: When a state entity sues for patent infringement, it waives sovereign immunity as to all defenses, including subject matter eligibility under Section 101.
