In Part I of this article, we briefly summarized how O’Reilly v. Morse was relied upon in the denial for rehearing in the recent case of AAM v. Neapco to assert that a patent claim to a method of making a motor vehicle axle failed to qualify as patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The concurring opinions concluded that claim 22 of the patent at issue, U.S. 7,774,911, “merely invoked” natural law, and did not describe what had been obtained in the patent. Consequently, as in O’Reilly v. Morse, the claim was “too broad, and not warranted by law.” We also noted an apparent paradox in that, while claims cannot preempt natural law and must be supported by an enabling specification, they necessarily must be able to read on embodiments that incorporate later-developed technology. The key to resolving this dilemma is the notion of invention, which was the basis for the holding by the Court of the King’s Bench in Hornblower v. Boulton.
Litigation
- Revolution Rope Inventor Tells Justices She Deserves Her Day in Article III Court
- Bristol Myers Says AstraZeneca’s Imjudo Infringes Yervoy Patent
- Federal Circuit Upholds Albright’s Ruling on Denial of Transfer for GM
- High Court Asks for SG Views on Apple’s Petition Challenging Federal Circuit Approach to IPR Estoppel
- Albright Gets OK from CAFC on Denial of Transfer for Amazon
Recent Posts
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, February 3: Trump Sues for Copyright Infringement, Google Wins Transfer from TX to CA, and Nike Takes Lululemon to Court for Patent Infringement
- Revolution Rope Inventor Tells Justices She Deserves Her Day in Article III Court
- The USPTO Claims it Wants to Ensure ‘Robust and Reliable’ Patents – But Its Questions Imply Another Assault on Patent Owners
- USPTO Issues Final Rule to Eliminate CLE Certification Program
- This Week in Washington IP: IPWatchdog Event to Review the State of the PTAB; US Inventor Protests in D.C.; and the House Considers Supply Chain Challenges