Federal Circuit Archives

Federal Circuit

No Bull: Historically Generic Term Can Become Non-Generic

by Amit Kumar Saha, PhD | Mar 20, 2025 | Trademarks

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed Trademark Trial & Appeal Board rulings, finding that a previously generic term was not generic at the time registration was sought because at that time the mark, as used in connection with the goods for which registration was sought, had achieved secondary meaning. Bullshine Distillery LLC v. Sazerac Brands, LLC, Case Nos. 23-1682; -1900 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 12, 2025) (Moore, C.J.; Reyna, Taranto, JJ.)

In 2015 Bullshine sought to register the trademark BULLSHINE FIREBULL for its line of “[a]lcoholic beverages except beers.” Sazerac, the owner of the FIREBALL marks used for liqueurs and whiskey, opposed registration. Sazerac argued that the registration of BULLSHINE FIREBULL would likely cause consumer confusion due to its similarity to Sazerac’s FIREBALL marks. Bullshine counterclaimed, asserting that the term “fireball” had become generic and was commonly used to describe a type of alcoholic drink, thus invalidating Sazerac’s claim to exclusivity.

The Board found that the FIREBALL mark was not generic either at the time of registration nor at the time of trial, and that BULLSHINE FIREBULL was not likely to cause confusion with Sazerac’s marks. The Board determined that the FIREBALL mark was “commercially strong but conceptually weak,” that the respective marks of Sazerac and Bullshine were dissimilar when considered in their entireties, and that Bullshine did not act in bad faith in choosing its marks. The Board denied Sazerac’s opposition to the BULLSHINE FIREBULL mark as well as Bullshine’s counterclaim that the FIREBALL mark was generic. Both parties appealed.

Bullshine argued that the Board applied the incorrect legal standard in finding FIREBALL not generic and that consequently, the finding of non-genericness (upon consideration of secondary meaning) was erroneous. Bullshine argued that since “fireball” was a generic term prior to Sazerac’s registration (as both parties agreed), that fact should have precluded Sazerac’s registration, and the Board erred in considering evidence of secondary meaning. Bullshine argued that if a term was generic at any time prior to registration, it remains generic, regardless of how it might be understood at the time of registration (i.e., once generic, always generic). Sazerac argued that the time to assess genericness is at the time of registration. The Federal Circuit agreed with Sazerac.

The Federal Circuit explained that the genericness inquiry is ultimately guided by “what consumers would think at the time of registration,” and that this ruling is supported by the statutory scheme of the Lanham Act. The Court explained that the Lanham Act, in addition to preventing registration of generic terms, also provides for cancellations of marks “[a]t any time,” and even marks with incontestable statuses can be challenged based on genericness. Therefore, Congress intended that the analysis of whether a term is generic can change over time, and Bullshine’s argument was inconsistent with the statute. This conclusion follows from the legal premise that impression of consumers is “necessarily contemporaneous with the time of registration.”

Bullshine cited the 1961 CCPA decision in Weiss Noodle in support of its argument that [...]

Continue Reading

Get a Grip: Not All Cords Have Handles

by Dexter Hamilton | Mar 20, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement because the district court improperly narrowed a claim term during its construction. IQRIS Technologies LLC v. Point Blank Enterprises, Inc. et al., Case No. 2023-2062 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2025) (Lourie, Linn, Stoll, JJ.)

IQRIS sued Point Black and National Molding for infringing its patents related to “quick release systems on tactical vests.” The patent claim vests include a “pull cord.” When pulled, the pull cord causes releasable hooks to disengage, detaching the front and rear portions of the vest. The defendants moved for summary judgment of noninfringement, arguing that the claimed “pull cord” is “a cord on the exterior of the ballistic garment grasped by a user that is capable of disengaging the releasable fastener or releasable hook when a user pulls on the pull cord.” IQRIS argued that the term should be construed as “a component which, when put into tension, can result in activating the releasable fastener.”

The district court construed “pull cord” as a “cord that can be directly pulled by a user to disengage a releasable fastener or releasable hook,” a construction that excluded cords with a handle. The district court found that one of the accused products featured a “trigger manifold” that enabled the user to apply “indirect force to [an] internal wire by applying a direct force to the trigger.” As a result, the district court determined that no reasonable jury could find infringement for that product. For another product, the district court found summary judgment to be appropriate because to rule otherwise, the accused vest would improperly encompass prior art criticized in the “background of the invention” portion of the patent specification. The specification criticized prior art having “cutaway vests with ‘handle’ release systems.”

IQRIS appealed. The Federal Circuit considered whether the district court correctly restricted “pull cord” to cords that are “directly pulled by a user.” The Court found that the claim language, which made no reference to “who or what pulls,” did not distinguish between direct and indirect pulling. Citing the patent specification, the Federal Circuit disagreed with the lower court’s interpretation, noting that the specification referred to a directly pulled element as a “pull cord” but an indirectly pulled element as just a “cord.” The Court noted that even though all disclosed embodiments depicted a directly pulled pull cord, “our precedent counsels against reading this requirement into the claims when the claims do not expressly require as much.”

The Federal Circuit next considered whether the proper construction of the term “pull cord” excluded cords with handles. The Court found that “nothing in the claim language, specification, or prosecution history supports this construction.” The claim language was “silent about the structure of the pull cord,” and the specification “suggest[ed] otherwise because each of the figures depicts a circular ball at the end of the pull cord[], suggesting that the inventors contemplated pull cords with handles.” While the specification criticized the cutaway [...]

Continue Reading

Palette of Evidence: PTAB Must Consider Entire Record to Determine Prior Art Status

by Anisa Noorassa | Mar 20, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board patentability determination, finding that the Board failed to consider the entire record regarding the prior art status of a sample and did not explain why it did not do so. CQV Co., Ltd. v. Merck Patent GmbH., Case No. 23-1027 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 10, 2025) (Chen, Mayer, Cunningham, JJ.)

Merck owns a patent that covers alpha-alumina flakes included in paints, industrial coatings, automotive coatings, printing, inks, and cosmetic formulations to impart a pearlescent luster. CQV petitioned the Board for post-grant review (PGR) of the patent, arguing that the challenged claims were obvious in view of prior art samples of Xirallic®, a trademarked product produced by Merck. In its final written decision, the Board found that CQV had not adequately supported its contention that the alleged Xirallic® lot qualified as prior art and therefore had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims were unpatentable. CQV appealed.

The Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s finding under the substantial evidence standard. The Court found that the Board erred in failing to consider the entire record and did not provide any basis for that failure. In terms of the prior art status of the Xirallic® samples, the Court found that the Board failed to consider testimony regarding the availability of Xirallic® for customer order and the length of the quality control process. The Court could not “reasonably discern whether the Board followed a proper path” in determining that CQV failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the sample of Xirallic® constituted prior art. The Court remanded, suggesting that the Board carefully consider whether the sample of Xirallic® would have been publicly available as of the alleged critical dates.

Construing Unambiguous Claim Language and Qualifying Challenged Expert as POSITA

by Taylor MacDonald | Mar 20, 2025 | Patents

Addressing the issues of claim construction and the requisite expert qualifications to testify on obviousness and anticipation, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision invalidating half of the challenged patent’s claims and instructed the Board to clarify whether the patent owner’s expert was indeed qualified as a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA). Sierra Wireless, ULC v. Sisvel S.P.A., Case Nos. 23-1059; -1085; -1089; -1125 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 10, 2025) (Moore, CJ: Schall, Taranto, JJ.)

Sisvel owns a patent directed to methods for retrieving data lost during wireless transmission. The prior art taught methods for flagging lost protocol data units (PDUs) so that the data transmitter could retry the transmission. Sisvel’s patent includes a timer that prescribes a period of time to elapse before alerting a transmitter of a missing PDU, allowing the transmission to be completed without notification. The patent has 10 claims, two of which are independent. The primary independent claim has four limitations, including one related to stopping the timer before a status report issues if the missing PDU is located and another related to issuing a status report upon the timer’s expiration. The limitations are linked by the word “and.”

Sierra Wireless initiated inter partes review (IPR), arguing that all 10 of the claims were both anticipated and obvious in light of the “Sachs” prior art patent. The Board found that half of the claims, including both independent claims, were anticipated and obvious. In finding that the other claims were not unpatentable, the Board relied on the testimony of Sisvel’s expert. Both parties appealed.

Sisvel raised two arguments in support of the claims the Board found unpatentable. First, Sisvel argued that the Board misconstrued the two above-noted limitations as mutually exclusive. Sisvel argued that the prior art had to teach both limitations to invalidate the claim. Second, Sisvel argued that the Board’s interpretation of Sachs’ teachings to include the first of the two limitations was unsupported by substantial evidence.

The Federal Circuit agreed. On the claim construction issue, the Court found that the two limitations in issue could not be mutually exclusive because the claim language linked them using the word “and.” To construe the limitations as mutually exclusive would be inconsistent with the unambiguous claim language. With regard to the prior art, the Court looked to Sachs Figure 5, which the Board relied upon in determining that the prior patent had taught the first limitation. Both the figure and the patent’s surrounding language made clear that the time referenced therein was dependent upon reordering of PDUs, not upon receiving missing ones. The Court thus vacated the Board’s invalidity determination as not supported by substantial evidence.

In its appeal, Sierra argued that the Board’s reliance on Sisvel’s expert’s testimony to find certain claims not unpatentable was an abuse of discretion. The Federal Circuit agreed, finding that the Board abused its discretion by not finding that the proposed expert qualified as a POSITA before relying [...]

Continue Reading

An Odyssey of Timeliness: Appointments Clause Arguments Must Be Preserved

by Dexter Hamilton | Mar 13, 2025 | Patents

Citing forfeiture, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the dismissal of a complaint against the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO). The complaint sought director review of a 2018 Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision that affirmed a rejection of claims in the subject patent application. In the initial appeal, no “appointments clause” argument was raised. Odyssey Logistics & Technology Corp. v. Stewart, Case No. 2023-2077 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2025) (Dyk, Reyna, Stoll, JJ.)

Background

In 2020, the Federal Circuit upheld a 2018 Board decision rejecting claims in a patent application owned by Odyssey Logistics. At that time, Odyssey did not raise an Appointments Clause challenge. However, following the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in United States v. Arthrex, Odyssey filed a request for PTO Director review of the 2018 Board decision, arguing that the decision was invalid under Arthrex. After its request was denied, Odyssey filed a district court complaint seeking to compel director review.

Arthrex addressed the Appointments Clause of the US Constitution, which provides that “Officers of the United States” must be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, while Congress may permit the appointment of “inferior Officers” by the President, courts, or department heads. In that case, the plaintiff argued that the Board’s administrative judges were principal officers (rather than inferior) and should have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

In 2019, the Federal Circuit ruled that there had been an appointments clause violation in Arthrex (coincidentally, this was during the time of Odyssey’s initial appeal to the Federal Circuit). In 2020, the Supreme Court agreed with the Federal Circuit’s ruling but provided a different remedy, holding that the Director “may review final PTAB decisions and, upon review, may issue decisions himself on behalf of the Board.”

Appeal

After Odyssey sought review of the 2018 decision, the PTO responded that it does not accept requests for Director review of ex parte appeal decisions. Odyssey then filed a district court complaint that was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court explained that judicial review of a decision committed to agency discretion was improper. Odyssey appealed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court, not on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction but for failure to state a claim. The Federal Circuit ruled that the PTO did not abuse its discretion in denying review. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a district court can relieve a party from a final judgment even after an appeal mandate, as long as the relief sought does not fall within the scope of that mandate. The principles underlying this rule provide guidance for agencies regarding reconsideration of prior agency decisions.

Odyssey did not raise its Appointments Clause argument in its appeal of the 2018 Board decision. The Federal Circuit has consistently held that “a party’s failure to raise an Appointments Clause challenge in its opening brief constitutes forfeiture even when the argument was [...]

Continue Reading

Inventor’s Motivation to Combine Does Not Control Obviousness

by Lois D. Mermelstein | Mar 13, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision rejecting claims of a patent application directed to a dosing regimen for a cancer treatment, finding the claims to be obvious where the motivation to use the claimed dosing was not the same as the inventor’s motivation. ImmunoGen, Inc. v. Coke Morgan Stewart, Case No. 23-1763 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, 2025) (Lourie, Dyk, Prost, JJ)

The claims at issue involved a dosing regimen for administering IMGN853, an already-patented antibody drug conjugate used for treating certain cancers, at a claimed dose of six milligrams (mg) per kilogram (kg) of adjusted ideal body weight (AIBW) of the patient.

ImmunoGen argued that it was undisputed that, at the time of the invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have known that IMGN853 caused ocular toxicity in humans and that without a motivation to address the problem of ocular toxicity, the claimed dosing limitation could not have been obvious. Therefore, according to ImmunoGen, the district court erred in its motivation-to-combine analysis. The Federal Circuit disagreed, stating, “that the specific problem the inventors . . . purported to solve via the claimed dosing regimen was unknown does not necessarily mean that the dosing regimen itself was not obvious.” The Court also noted that because ocular toxicity was a well-known adverse event in the administration of drugs containing a payload included in IMGN853, “a person of ordinary skill in the art, despite not knowing of IMGN853’s ocular toxicity, would have nonetheless been motivated to monitor for those side effects when administering the drug to a human.”

ImmunoGen also argued that the district court erred in finding that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use AIBW dosing to eliminate ocular toxicity. The Federal Circuit again disagreed, reasoning that although AIBW dosing has not been used for drugs such as IMGN853, it would still have been within the range of knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art when addressing dosing-induced ocular toxicity. The Court explained that AIBW was well known, had been used for drugs both smaller and larger than IMGN853, and had proven effective in reducing ocular toxicity.

The Federal Circuit concluded that the district court did not clearly err in determining that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the claimed dose of six mg/kg AIBW with a reasonable expectation of success. The claimed dose had already been described in the literature for patients at their ideal body weight, regardless of whether a doctor was aware of AIBW dosing specifically. The Court also noted that the district court was not required to find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of eliminating ocular toxicity using the claimed dose, as “the obviousness inquiry is generally agnostic to the particular motivation of the inventor” and the claims made no reference to ocular toxicity.

Practice Note: [...]

Continue Reading

Economic Prong of Domestic Industry Requirement Includes All Sorts of Labor and Capital

by Connor S. Romm | Mar 13, 2025 | Patents

Addressing the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under Section 337(a)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a US International Trade Commission decision, finding that the Commission had applied an overly narrow interpretation of the requirement. The Court explained that expenses related to sales, marketing, warehousing, quality control, and distribution may qualify as “labor and capital” for establishing the existence of a domestic industry, even if there is no domestic manufacturing. Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Comm’n, Case No. 23-1245 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 5, 2025) (Taranto, Prost, Chen, JJ.)

Lashify is a US-based company that sells eyelash extension products. Concerned about the importation of similar goods, Lashify filed a complaint with the Commission, alleging that certain importers were infringing its patents. As an importer itself, Lashify had its products manufactured abroad before selling them to customers in the United States. In doing so, Lashify incurred significant expenses related to warehousing, distribution, quality control, sales, and marketing. These expenses were critical to Lashify’s domestic industry case.

The Commission rejected Lashify’s claims, reasoning that it did not demonstrate the establishment of, or effort to establish, a domestic industry. This is known as the “economic prong” of the domestic industry requirement. One way to satisfy this prong is by showing the expenditure of significant labor or capital within the US. Lashify’s domestic expenses were limited to warehousing, distribution, quality control, sales, and marketing costs, and in the Commission’s view, these expenses did not constitute significant “labor or capital” under Section 337 (a)(3)(B). The Commission determined that these expenses were no greater than those any importer would incur once its products arrived in the US. Lashify appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed, citing the text of the provision recognizing significant labor or capital as a means of establishing a domestic industry and noted that the statutory language did not exclude expenses related to warehousing, distribution, quality control, sales, and marketing. Considering the domestic industry requirement under Section 337(a)(3)(C), the Court noted that the reference to labor and capital in part (B) was analogous to investments in plant and manufacturing in part (C), which similarly did not limit the “enterprise functions” to which the investments must be directed.

The Federal Circuit cited its 2015 decision in Lelo, which defined “labor” as “human activity that produces goods or provides the services in demand in an economy” and “capital” as “a stock of accumulated goods,” not simply money to finance an enterprise. The Court held that complainants may satisfy the economic prong by demonstrating the “employment of a large enough stock of accumulated goods [i.e., capital] or of a significant amount of human activity for production goods or providing the services in demand in an economy [i.e., labor].” The Court determined that Lashify’s warehousing, distribution, quality control, sales, and marketing expenses fit within this definition and should therefore be considered in assessing whether Lashify had employed sufficient labor and capital within the US to satisfy the economic [...]

Continue Reading

Interesting Delay: Prejudgment Interest Accrues Despite Unreasonable Delay

by Taylor MacDonald | Mar 13, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a decision on enhanced damages and prejudgment interest, concluding that the district court correctly applied the appropriate standard for enhanced damages in accordance with established precedent. Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., Case Nos. 23-1772; -1966 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 28, 2025) (Prost, Bryson, Reyna, JJ.) (nonprecedential).

In 2013, following a jury verdict in favor of Halo, the district court entered a $1.5 million verdict against Pulse for willful infringement but denied Halo enhanced damages. Halo appealed and, in 2016, engendered a new enhanced damages standard from the Supreme Court. In 2015, while the case was pending before the Supreme Court, Halo filed for an award of supplemental damages for direct infringement between 2012 and 2013, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest on the initial $1.5 million judgment and on the supplemental damages. The district court awarded supplemental damages and prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

In 2017, the district court determined that Halo was not entitled to enhanced damages or attorneys’ fees under the Supreme Court’s new standard. Although the parties still disagreed on which method to use for prejudgment interest calculation – and briefed their positions accordingly – the district court mistakenly ordered the clerk to enter a final judgment and close the case. After the Supreme Court decided WesternGeco v. ION Geophysical in 2018, Halo (in 2020) filed a motion seeking prejudgment interest and a new damages trial, arguing that the district court had not made a final ruling on the issue of prejudgment interest and that WesternGeco was intervening case law that permitted it to seek additional damages for Pulse’s activities outside the United States.

Halo argued that because the final order closing the case ignored an outstanding issue (prejudgment interest), the case was merely administratively closed. Although Pulse argued that the resurrected case should remain closed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court awarded limited prejudgment interest in March 2023. The district court rejected Halo’s request for a new trial regarding additional foreign damages under WesternGeco.

Halo appealed, and Pulse counter appealed. Halo raised two main arguments:

Enhanced damages were appropriate because of the jury’s finding of willfulness.
The district court should have allowed a limited trial on the issue of foreign infringement.

Pulse argued that FRCP 41(b) should have barred any prejudgment interest because Halo did not address the court’s oversight until 2020.

The Federal Circuit rejected both of Halo’s arguments. It explained that a jury’s finding of willfulness is “but one factor” in an enhanced damages determination under the Supreme Court’s highly discretionary Halo test. Willful infringement does not require the more egregious intent that gives rise to enhanced damages, nor does it merge with enhanced damages analyses procedurally – willfulness is a jury issue, while enhanced damages is an issue for the court.

Addressing Pulse’s argument, the Federal Circuit found no abuse of discretion in either the district court’s refusal of a new trial [...]

Continue Reading

Validity Analysis for Product-by-Process Claim Focuses on Product

by Courtney Seams | Mar 13, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board patentability finding, explaining that an anticipation analysis for a product-by-process claim focuses on the product and not the process. Restem, LLC v. Jadi Cell, LLC, Case No. 23-2054 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2025) (Moore, Schall, Taranto, JJ.)

Jadi Cell owns a patent directed to stem cells that have specific cell markers expressed. These stem cells are obtained from the subepithelial layer of mammalian umbilical cord tissue by first placing the layer in contact with a tissue culture growth substrate and then culturing the layer. The claims of the patent are product-by-process claims. Restem challenged certain claims of the patent in an inter partes review (IPR) petition as being anticipated by the Majore reference or obvious in view of Majore in combination with other references. The Board found that none of the challenged claims were shown to be unpatentable. Restem appealed.

The Board construed the claim term “placing a subepithelial layer of a mammalian umbilical cord tissue in direct contact with a growth substrate” to mean “to intentionally place umbilical cord tissue comprising the subepithelial layer so that it touches a growth substrate to permit cell culture.” The Board found that while the prior art references disclosed the two-step process in the claims, the references failed to disclose the claimed cells because the references did not necessarily produce cells with the claimed cell marker expression profile. Restem argued that the Board erred by construing the claims to require steps beyond the claimed two-step process. The Federal Circuit rejected that argument, finding that the Board had made underlying factual findings that supported its anticipation analysis in construing the “placing” step and therefore did not err.

In the underlying proceeding, the Board declined to construe “isolated cell” but construed “expresses/does not express” to mean that “the marker is confirmed present/absent relative to a control sample,” consistent with its interpretation of isolated cell to indicate a cell population. In construing this claim, the Board relied on extrinsic evidence to assess how a person of ordinary skill in the art would determine whether the cell markers were expressed. The Board found that both parties’ experts agreed that cell marker analysis was done at the cell population level at the time of invention. Restem argued that the Board erred in implicitly construing “isolated cell” contrary to the express definition in the challenged patent. However, the Federal Circuit upheld that implicit construction as supported by the intrinsic evidence because the specification consistently described the claimed invention as a cell population and the prosecution history indicated that the examiner only allowed the patentee to claim a cell population.

As for the Board’s finding that the Majore reference did not inherently or expressly anticipate the challenged claims, the Federal Circuit affirmed. The Board found that the cell marker expression profile distinguished the claimed cells from other stem cells and was therefore limiting, and that Majore did not expressly disclose the nonexpression limitations included [...]

Continue Reading

Diamond in the Rough: Federal Circuit Polishes § 101’s Abstract Idea Test

by Keval Amin | Feb 20, 2025 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a determination by the US International Trade Commission regarding subject matter ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Court concluded that the Commission’s “loose and generalized” analysis did not adequately consider the specific and technical improvements specified by the claims. US Synthetic Corp. v. International Trade Commission, Case No. 23-1217 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2025) (Dyk, Chen, Stoll, JJ.)

US Synthetic Corp. (USS) filed a complaint with the Commission, alleging that several entities (intervenors) violated § 337 of the Tariff Act by importing and selling certain products that infringed five of USS’s patents. The patent at issue concerned a composition of a polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC) and disclosed an improved method for manufacturing PDCs.

An administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that several claims of the patent were valid and infringed under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112. However, the ALJ found the claims patent-ineligible under § 101, deeming them directed to an abstract idea. The Commission affirmed this finding while rejecting the intervenors’ argument that the claims lacked enablement under § 112. Consequently, the only bar to a § 337 violation was the § 101 ruling. USS appealed, challenging the Commission’s patent ineligibility determination, while the intervenors argued that the claims were not enabled.

The Federal Circuit determined that the patent claims were directed to a specific technological improvement rather than an abstract idea. The Court had consistently explained that claims that provide a concrete technological solution to a recognized problem in the field are patent-eligible under § 101. Here, the claimed invention was not merely an implementation of an abstract idea on a generic computer; rather, it provided a particularized solution rooted in the physical composition of matter defined by constituent elements, dimensional information, and inherent material properties.

Applying the Supreme Court’s two-step Alice framework, the Federal Circuit reasoned that, under Alice step one, courts must determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea or a patent-eligible improvement. In this case, the Court found that the patent claims were not directed to an abstract idea because they recited a specific solution that was directed to a non-abstract composition of matter: PDC. Unlike claims found ineligible in prior cases, USS’s patent did not merely recite a mathematical algorithm or fundamental economic practice but instead provided a tangible technological advancement for an improved method for manufacturing PDCs.

The Federal Circuit noted that even if the claims were directed to an abstract idea under Alice step one, the claimed invention contained an inventive concept sufficient to transform the nature of the claim into patent-eligible subject matter under Alice step two. The Court explained that an inventive concept exists when the claims recite a specific, unconventional solution that goes beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the field. Here, the Court determined that the claimed invention included an innovative combination of components (diamond, cobalt catalyst, and substrate) in conjunction with particular dimensional information (grain size) and [...]

Continue Reading

Older Posts »

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS