Patent Law

Subscribe to Patent Law via RSS

Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 remains one of the most hotly contested and unpredictable areas of U.S. patent law. In the years following the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (2014) and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (2012), lower courts, the USPTO, and the Federal Circuit have wrestled with the proper application of the two-step framework for determining whether an invention is directed to an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon—and, if so, whether it includes an inventive concept sufficient to transform it into patent-eligible subject matter.

patent denial

On the heels of the rescission of the Fintiv guidance memorandum, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has again reshaped the PTAB’s approach to discretionary denials. On March 26, 2025, the Acting Director issued a new memorandum that fundamentally changes how the PTAB will handle inter partes review and post grant review petitions

For anyone following the evolving admissibility standards for expert opinions relating to patent damages, the EcoFactor v. Google case is one to watch. In December 2024, the Federal Circuit granted Google’s petition for rehearing en banc to address the effect of amended Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals as they relate to admissibility of damages expert testimony—particularly when a per-unit royalty rate is derived from three allegedly comparable lump-sum licenses.

On February 28, 2025, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced that it was rescinding a 2022 memorandum that provided guidance regarding the application of the Apple v. Fintiv decision to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s discretion to deny patent challenges with pending parallel district court litigation. The PTO has referred parties back to precedent for guidance including Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc. Rescinding the 2022 memorandum also has the effect of effectively removing the proposed rules related to discretionary denial that were under consideration as recently as last year.

As generative artificial intelligence (AI) continues to transform industries, its impact on patent law is raising critical legal questions. From the recognition of AI as an inventor and potential infringement risks posed by the AI-generated outputs to the use of AI in patent validity challenges, the legal landscape is rapidly evolving. This article explores how generative AI is reshaping patent litigation, including the legal implications for inventorship, infringement and validity.

The legal battle between Harvard and 10x Genomics, and Vizgen Inc. came to a halt the other day, February 6, 2025, when the parties notified Judge Matthew F. Kennelly they had reached a settlement. This comes after three days of intense trial in the District of Delaware. Harvard and 10x filed suit against Vizgen back in April of 2022 alleging it was infringing on a series of Harvard’s patents dedicated to gene-mapping technologies. Vizgen counter-claimed that Harvard breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violated the warranties it made in the Vizgen licensing agreement, and negligently misrepresented those warranties to induce Vizgen to enter the agreement. Vizgen also claimed that 10x tortiously interfered with its business relationships, the parties violated antitrust statutes, and sough a declaratory judgment declaring the patents invalid. The original licensing deal was with ReadCoor, a company acquired by 10x that was co-founded by Harvard Medical School professor and named inventor on the patents-in-suit, George Church.

Stablecoins have emerged as one of the most transformative innovations in the cryptocurrency space, bridging the gap between the volatility of traditional cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and the stability demanded by mainstream financial systems. This rise has brought with it a wave of innovation, and nowhere is this more apparent than…

Less than two months after CVC made the surprising move to revoke two of its seminal European CRISPR patents, Sigma-Aldrich has done it too. While the facts that led to Sigma’s “self” revocation may be different than CVC’s, this en vogue trend of avoiding final decisions is troubling because it…

There is no shortage of surprises and twists in the decade-long fight over the control of dominant IP in the CRISPR space.  The newest one is the self-revocation of two seminal CRISPR patents in Europe by the team led by two Nobel Laureates Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna (aka “CVC”).  …