Invalidating a patent
Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit involving patent subject matter eligibility in the wake of Given the high invalidation rate of patents on Section 101 grounds at the Supreme Court, Federal Circuit, U. District Courts, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), interested stakeholders have justifiable concerns on the future value of patents involving software and life sciences, and the fallout this could have on American investment in these crucial industries. filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari seeking to overturn the Federal Circuit’s decision invalidating its pre-natal genetic testing patent as a patent ineligible natural law or phenomenon, in Ten days earlier, Versata Development Group also filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari challenging multiple findings by the Federal Circuit involving a Covered Business Method (CBM) Patent Review by the USPTO invalidating its software based hierarchical pricing engine patent.In their concurrence on denial of rehearing , Judges Lourie and Moore also strongly asserted that the Sequenom claims at issue were neither solely directed to a natural phenomenon, nor abstract, and “it is unsound to have a rule that takes inventions of this nature out of the realm of patent-eligibility on grounds that they only claim a natural phenomenon plus conventional steps, or that they claim abstract concepts.” But these judges agreed that the Federal Circuit panel “did not err in its conclusion that under Supreme Court precedent it had no option other than to affirm the district court.” And in his separate concurrence of denial of rehearing Judge Dyk noted: Yet I share the concerns of some of my colleagues that a too restrictive test for patent eligibility under 35 U. This leads me to think that some further illumination as to the scope of , and any further guidance must come from the Supreme Court, not this court.Like most statutes, Title 35 is not very specific with respect to the details regarding implementation of its directives.Notice that 35 USC 112 only states that a claim is necessary, but does not provide any information on the structure or format of the claim or claims.Nonetheless, given that so many of the patents before the Federal Circuit involved simple financial or business practices or other non-technical practices implemented on generic computers, there still may be hope that case, where we can expect a decision at any time.
The claims at issue are not as specific as their intended application, yet recite a motion tracking system that includes inertial sensors and an element for receiving signals from the inertial sensors to determine orientation of a tracked object.
In determining the breadth of what is covered by the initial filing the applicant may rely on the description contained in the specification, any drawings filed and the originally filed claims.
Today, as the result of the , patent claims and drawings are no longer required in order to obtain a filing date on a non-provisional patent application.
Any patent, or patent application, contains a variety of different sections that contain different information.
Generally speaking, a patent is divided into a specification, drawings and patent claims.