Law Commons^™

Update On Patent-Related Cases In Computers And Electronics, Karishma Jiva Cartwright, Timothy T. Hsieh, Saurabh Vishnubhakat

Articles

This paper provides an overview of patent cases relating to computer and electronics technology that were not taken up by the Supreme Court during the October 2022 term. As of this writing, the Supreme Court has not granted certiorari in any patent-related cases for its October 2021 Term. The Court has, however, called for the views of the Solictor General in four cases, indicating higher interest and raising the possibility that one or more of these cases may appear on the Court's merits docket for the October 2022 Term. Additionally, though the Court denied certiorari in Baxter v. Becton, Dickinson, …

The Perks Of Being Human, Max Stul Oppenheimer

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

The power of artificial intelligence has recently entered the public consciousness, prompting debates over numerous legal issues raised by use of the tool. Among the questions that need to be resolved is whether to grant intellectual property rights to copyrightable works or patentable inventions created by a machine, where there is no human intervention sufficient to grant those rights to the human. Both the U. S. Copyright Office and the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office have taken the position that in cases where there is no human author or inventor, there is no right to copyright or patent protection. …

A Named Inventor Of A Patent Should Be Expanded To Include Artificial Intelligence, Min Li

Touro Law Review

Why should patent inventors be limited to only natural persons under the current United States patent law? In fact, the present US patent law should be expanded to allow an Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) to be a named inventor of a patent. This would incentivize patent owners to use AI to produce more inventions that would benefit the public. There is no negative impact to expand the current US patent law. Many scholars, law professors, and practitioners believe that the patent law (or intellectual property law in general) is outdated due to the massive growth of modern technology. This Note argues …

Greasing The Wheels Of Patent Law: Clarifying The Judicial Exceptions Via American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. V. Neapco Holdings Llc, Michael Oliver

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

Patents stimulate the economy, they give inventors (and investors in the patent) confidence that their work will be protected. You have never been able to patent laws of nature, natural phenomena or abstract ideas. These combine to create the judicial exceptions. The issue is that these terms are so broad that it is difficult to determine when a patent is connected to a judicial exception. The Supreme Court created the Alice test, a two-part test to determine whether a claim is tied to a judicial exception. That was back in 2014 and is the last time the Supreme Court has …

The (Unnoticed) Revitalization Of The Doctrine Of Equivalents, Daryl Lim

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Over the past century, few patent issues have been considered so often by the Supreme Court of the United States as the doctrine of equivalents (“DOE”). This judge-made rule deals with a question that lies at the heart of patent policy—what is the best way to define property rights in an invention? The doctrine gives patentees an opportunity to ensnare an accused device that does not literally infringe a patent claim if the accused device is substantially similar to each claim limitation. Patentees enjoy this advantage, but it comes at a cost to the public, who must face the …

The Justiciability Of Cancelled Patents, Greg Reilly

Washington and Lee Law Review

The recent expansion of the Patent Office’s power to invalidate issued patents raises a coordination problem when there is concurrent litigation, particularly where the federal courts have already upheld the patent’s validity. The Federal Circuit has concluded that Patent Office cancellation extinguishes litigation pending at any stage and requires vacating prior decisions in the case. This rule is widely criticized on doctrinal, policy, and separation of powers grounds. Yet the Federal Circuit has reached (almost) the right outcome, except for the wrong reasons. Both the Federal Circuit and its critics overlook that the Federal Circuit’s rule reflects a straightforward application …

The Federal Circuit's Treatment Of Rule 12 Dismissals For Lack Of Patent Eligible Subject Matter, Andrew Kanel

Akron Law Review

After the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, there has been an increase in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 12 motions to dismiss for lack of patentable subject matter. These motions are often granted at the district court level and are predominantly upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). This trend creates a hostile environment for inventors and patent holders and threatens to curb innovation in various areas including computer software, biotechnology, and medical diagnostics. The Federal Circuit’s current application of the Alice test at the Rule 12 stage favors …

An Inside History Of The Burger Court's Patent Eligibility Jurisprudence, Christopher B. Seaman, Sheena X. Wang

Scholarly Articles

Patent eligibility is one of the most important and controversial issues in intellectual property law. Although the relevant constitutional and statutory text is extremely broad, the Supreme Court has significantly narrowed the scope of patentable eligibility by creating exceptions for inventions directed to abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomenon. In particular, the Supreme Court’s decisions on this issue over the past decade have created considerable uncertainty regarding the patentability of important innovations. As a result, numerous stakeholders have called for reform of the current rules regarding patent eligibility, and members of Congress have introduced legislation to amend the …

A Functional Approach To Judicial Review Of Ptab Rulings On Mixed Questions Of Law And Fact, Rebecca S. Eisenberg

Articles

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) has long relied on active appellate review to bring uniformity and clarity to patent law. It initially treated the PTO the same as the federal district courts, reviewing its factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. Following reversal by the Supreme Court in Dickinson v. Zurko, the Federal Circuit began giving greater deference to PTO factual findings. But it continued to review the PTO’s legal conclusions de novo, while coding an expansive list of disputed issues in patent cases as legal conclusions, even when they …

Elite Patent Law, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

Over the last twenty years, one of the most significant developments in intellectual property law has been the dramatic increase in the number of patent cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. That same time period has also seen the emergence of a small, elite group of lawyers specializing not in any particular area of substantive law but in litigation before the Supreme Court. In recent empirical work, I linked the Court’s growing interest in patent law to the more frequent participation of elite Supreme Court lawyers in patent cases, particularly at the cert. stage. Among other things, I found …

Petitioner Estoppel From Patent Trial And Appeal Board Proceedings After Sas Institute Inc. V. Iancu, Jennifer Esch, Paula Miller, Stacy Lewis, Tom Irving

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Is The Federal Circuit Learning Its Lessons? A Case Study Of Bpcia Preemption, Mary Lafleur

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Huge Numbers Of Patent Cases: How One District Judge Manages Them - The 2018 Supreme Court Ip Review Address, The Honorable William Alsup

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

The Patent On-Sale Bar Post-Helsinn And Its Effect On The Pharmaceutical Industry, Raja Chatterjee

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

The purpose of the patent on-sale bar is to discourage inventors from misusing the patent system and unfairly extending their patent exclusivity period. In Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, the Federal Circuit has distorted this doctrine far beyond its purpose. By including non-public business transactions within the scope of the on-sale bar, the Federal Circuit’s decision contradicts legislative history and express statutory language from the America Invents Act (“AIA”). This interpretation also makes the U.S. the only major patent system where a non-public sale can lead to the forfeiture of an inventor’s patent rights. The inclusion of non-public agreements within …

Using A Phillips Construction In All Ptab Trials: The Impact On District Court Patent Actions And Ptab Proceedings, Sarah Jelsema, Andrew Mason, John Vandenberg

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Due Process In Aia Proceedings After Sas Institute Inc. V. Iancu, Mikaela Stone, Britton Davis

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

All Or Nothing: Why The Supreme Court Sas Mandate Does Not Eliminate The Shaw Safe Harbor, Matt Johnson, Michael Lavine, Daniel Kazhdan Ph.D, Lisa Furby, David Anderson

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

The Collapse Of Covered Business Method Reviews, Eleanor M. Yost

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

The Procedure Of Patent Eligibility, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

A decade ago, the patent-eligible subject matter requirement was defunct. Several recent Supreme Court decisions, however, have made eligibility the most important issue in many patent cases. To date, debates over the resurgent doctrine have focused mainly on its substance. Critics contend that the Supreme Court’s case law makes patents too easy to invalidate and discourages innovation. Supporters emphasize that the Court’s decisions help eradicate the overly broad patents often asserted by so-called patent trolls.

Yet one important consequence of eligibility’s revival has been procedural. Because district courts often view eligibility to present a pure question of law, they are—for …

A Patent Reformist Supreme Court And Its Unearthed Precedent, Samuel F. Ernst

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

How is it that the Supreme Court, a generalist court, is leading a project of innovation reform in our times while the court of appeals established to encourage innovation is having its precedent stricken down time and again? This decade the Supreme Court has issued far more patent law decisions than in any decade since the passage of the Patent Act of 1952. In doing so, the Supreme Court has overruled the Federal Circuit in roughly threequarters of the patent cases in which the Supreme Court has issued opinions. In most of these cases, the Supreme Court has established rules …

Rule 36 Decisions At The Federal Circuit: Statutory Authority, Matthew J. Dowd

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

Recent commentary has questioned the validity of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's use of Rule 36 affirmances in deciding appeals from the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). One article in particular posits that 35 U.S.C. § 144 and 15 U.S.C.§ 1071(a)(4) require the Federal Circuit to write an opinion in every appeal from the USPTO and therefore the court's use of Rule 36 affirmances, particularly with appeals of cases from the America Invents Act, is improper. This Article presents a reasoned counterpoint to that argument. A complete analysis of the statutory text, the legislative history, …

The Federal Circuit As An Institution, Ryan G. Vacca

Law Faculty Scholarship

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is a unique institution. Unlike other circuit courts, the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction is bound by subject area rather than geography, and it was created to address a unique set of problems specific to patent law. These characteristics have affected its institutional development and made the court one of the most frequently studied appellate courts. This chapter examines this development and describes the evolving qualities that have helped the Federal Circuit distinguish itself, for better or worse, as an institution.

This chapter begins with an overview of the concerns existing before creation of …

The Post-Alice Jurisprudence Pendulum And Its Effects On Patent Eligible Subject Matter, John Robert Sepúlveda

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rising Confusion About 'Arising Under' Jurisdiction In Patent Cases, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

By statute, all cases “arising under” patent law must be heard exclusively by the federal courts (not state courts) and, on appeal, by the Federal Circuit (not the twelve regional circuits). But not all cases involving patents “arise under” patent law. As recently as 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that the mere need to apply patent law in, for example, a malpractice case involving a patent lawyer, is insufficient to trigger exclusive jurisdiction. Rather, the Court held, for a case that does not involve claims of patent infringement to arise under patent law, the patent issue must be “important . …

Getting Patent Preemption Right, Camilla A. Hrdy

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Can A Court Change The Law By Saying Nothing?, Paul Gugliuzza, Mark A. Lemley

Faculty Scholarship

Can an appellate court alter substantive law without writing an opinion? We attempt to answer that question by conducting a novel empirical investigation into how the Federal Circuit has implemented the Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling in Alice v. CLS Bank, the most recent in a series of Supreme Court decisions strengthening patent law’s patentable subject matter requirement. Our dataset includes each one of the Federal Circuit’s more than 100 decisions on patentable subject matter in the three years since Alice, including affirmances issued without an opinion under Federal Circuit Rule 36.

Including those no-opinion affirmances, the Federal Circuit has found …

Can A Court Change The Law By Saying Nothing?, Paul R. Gugliuzza, Mark A. Lemley

Vanderbilt Law Review

Can an appellate court alter substantive law without writing an opinion? We attempt to answer that question by conducting a novel empirical investigation into how the Federal Circuit has implemented the Supreme Court's 2014 ruling in Alice v. CLS Bank, the most recent in a series of Supreme Court decisions strengthening patent law's patentable subject matter requirement. Our dataset includes each one of the Federal Circuit's more than 100 decisions on patentable subject matter in the three years since Alice, including affirmances issued without an opinion under Federal Circuit Rule 36. Including those no-opinion affirmances, the Federal Circuit has found …

#Squadgoals: A Response To Seth Waxman, Amelia Smith Rinehart

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

A Court Divided, Shubha Ghosh

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Quick Decisions In Patent Cases, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

Patent litigation is notoriously expensive and time consuming. In the past decade, however, patent law has changed in many ways that expedite resolution of infringement disputes. This article identifies and evaluates this trend toward quick decisions in patent cases. Balancing the savings in litigation costs against the potential for error, the article defends many recent and controversial developments, including the Supreme Court’s invigoration of the patent eligible subject matter requirement, the new administrative proceedings created by the America Invents Act, and changes in the requirements for pleading patent infringement. These developments permit defendants to obtain rulings of invalidity or noninfringement …