Ameranth v. Doordash – Second Patent Infringement Complaint, New (‘Network Patents’), Conformed Copy
The Supreme Court declined to hear an important patent eligibility case on October 2nd, denying certiorari in CareDx v. Natera. This leaves in place a Federal Circuit ruling that invalidated CareDx’s patents on its method for detecting organ transplant rejection.
Ex-Fed. Circ. Chief Judge Backs Another Patent ‘101 Eligibility Case
“Because Congress defined the scope of patentable subject matter eligibility in § 101, its express terms should have ended the judicial inquiry.” – US Inventor/Eagle Forum ELDF
For the United States to maintain its competitive edge on the global stage, we must lead in innovation. This is only achievable by committing to protect the intellectual property that underlies game-changing inventions and brings about transformative change for patients, consumers, and businesses. A strong innovation economy is inextricably linked to a strong intellectual property (IP) system. Now is the time for bipartisan majorities to gather in support of this essential linchpin of U.S. prosperity and economic growth.
“PTAB has been used as a cudgel against patent holders, including small inventors without the financial resources to defend their IP in multiple fora, and the PREVAIL Act addresses this issue.” – David Kappos, C4IP
“The boldness of the new bills is stunning, especially after years of futile efforts by patent owners to get more modest reforms adopted by USPTO leaders.”
“[The] split [on patent eligibility law] produces intolerable uncertainty for businesses, with the Executive Branch issuing meritorious patents like the three patents at issue here, only to have the courts invalidate them.” – Michel/Duffy brief
Law360 (May 16, 2023, 11:13 PM EDT) -- While the U.S. Supreme Court declined again on Monday to address patent eligibility, attorneys said calls for more clarity on the divisive issue aren't going away, with eyes turning to future cases at the high court or the Federal Circuit, or to Congressional legislation.
In spite of robust amicus backing, including from the US Solicitor General, the Supreme Court has declined to review two pending patent-eligibility petitions: Interactive Wearables v. Polar and Tropp v. Travel Sentry. These cases contended that the Alice/Mayo framework produced (1) instability and unpredictability in the law; (2) facilitated non-evidence based judgments by district courts; and (3) prohibited patenting of subject matter that has traditionally been eligible for patents.
“The time is now for the Court to grant certiorari, or for Congress to pass new laws, so that the problem of eligibility can be eliminated, and consistency and clarity be provided to all who rely on our patent system.”
“The drafters of the 1952 Patent Act knew what they were doing, and it is not within the authority of Article III courts to rewrite the Patent Law in a way that bypasses the safeguards placed into the law by Congress.” – Killian petition
Law360 (April 5, 2023, 10:28 PM EDT) -- The solicitor general recommended Wednesday that the U.S. Supreme Court should hear two cases dealing with patent eligibility, saying that hearing both in tandem will bring "much-needed clarification" to the contentious issue.
“Applying modified versions of other doctrines in the guise of a Section 101 analysis unmoors those doctrines from the statutory text and iminishes their analytical rigor.” – Solicitor General’s brief
Judge Won't Upend $15M Yahoo Patent Loss, Adds Interest