Filewrapper

Federal Circuit reiterates the principle that when a § 103 rejection is based on a single prior art reference, the reference must be self-enabling in order to render the claimed invention obvious

By Joseph M. Hallman

On April 16, 2021, in Raytheon Technologies Corp. v. General Electric Co., the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) reversed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) regarding unpatentability due to obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In its decision, the Federal Circuit made clear that when […]

Continue Reading →

Inherent anticipation – Is the phenotype exhibited by a transgenic plant an inherent feature?

By Brian D. Keppler, Ph.D.

A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference. If a prior art reference expressly sets forth each of the elements of a claim, then there is typically little question of whether or not the […]

Continue Reading →

Pegasus Universal Aerospace’s Patents Vertical Business Jet

By Gregory Lars Gunnerson

Pegasus Universal Aerospace (Pegasus UA) has recently acquired a U.S. patent for a newly developed vertical takeoff and landing business jet. The patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,710,713, names Dr. Mohamed Reza Mia as its sole inventor. Dr. Reza Mia also serves as Pegasus UA’s founder and chairman. The Johannesburg-based South Africa company seemingly hopes to […]

Continue Reading →

Federal Circuit Judge Evan Wallach Taking Senior Status

By Gregory Lars Gunnerson

Seat 9 of the Federal Circuit is being vacated by Judge Evan Wallach, who was appointed by President Barack Obama and will take senior status. President Joe Biden will thus be tasked with nominating the seat’s next holder. The seat will be officially vacated on May 31, 2021. The last seat to open up on […]

Continue Reading →

Federal Circuit Revives SynQor Patent

By Julie L. Spieker

On February 22, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision that SynQor’s US Patent No. 7,072,190 was unpatentable. SynQor’s ‘190 patent relates to technology that converts DC current from one voltage to another for use in large computer systems and data communication equipment. […]

Continue Reading →

Deposit of biological material and the differing national laws

By Brian D. Keppler, Ph.D.

For patent applications in the biotechnology area, a biological material is sometimes essential for carrying out the invention. The biological material can be any material capable of reproducing itself or being reproduced in a biological system, including bacteria, fungi, algae, eukaryotic cells, cell lines, hybridomas, plasmids, viruses, and plant seeds. If the biological material cannot […]

Continue Reading →

Has the Federal Circuit Made It Nearly Impossible to Maintain Genus Claims?

By Blog Staff

A recent denial by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to hear an appeal by Merck’s Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC (Idenix), leaves unanswered questions regarding the overall validity of genus claims, particularly within the biopharma field. The SCOTUS denied a petition for writ of certiorari to clarify certain Section 112 requirements with respect to […]

Continue Reading →

USPTO Report on Intellectual Property in China: Value, Validity, and Volume

By Sarah M.D. Luth

Last January the U.S. and China signed an Economic Trade Agreement which required China to overhaul its scheme of intellectual property protection. In October of 2020 the National People’s Congress passed new amendments to the Patent Law, which will come into effect on June 1, 2021. The most significant amendments to China’s patent law relate […]

Continue Reading →

Roll Call: Are all Inventors Accounted for in a Foreign Filing with the EPO?

By Blog Staff

Earlier this month, the European Patent Office (“EPO”) explained why it upheld a decision revoking a patent applied for by Broad Institute of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard (“Broad Institute”) related to CRISPR gene editing. In particular, the decision cited a lack of novelty due to an invalid claim to priority—for inadvertently failing […]

Continue Reading →

Right to Repair: Can you fix your own things? Part 1

This post is part 1 of a set of posts relating to a person’s right to repair your things. When you buy a thing, you expect the thing to at least work as intended. The thing is usually even warranted for at least a little while to be useable as intended by the manufacturer. However, […]

Continue Reading →

Stay in Touch

Receive the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Sign Up