As detailed in Part I of this article, the recent opinion in AAM, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings, LLC, No. 18-1763 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2020) misreads and misinterprets Supreme Court precedent as having long imposed the enablement-like requirements set forth in the AAM ruling. Similarly, the Federal Circuit cases cited by AAM do not reflect some longstanding Section 101 eligibility rule that the claim alone must show, with “specificity,” the “way” or “how to” “achieve” such an invention, beyond a mere “result.”
Recent Posts
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, July 26: New Group Registration for Frequently Updated News Websites, Trade Secret Claims Against TikTok Survive Dismissal, and USPTO’s Estoppel Provisions in IPR Proceedings Upheld
- Call Off Chicken Little: The Sky is Not Falling for Skinny Labeling After GSK v. Teva
- CAFC Committee Recommends Another Year of Sanctions Against Newman
- Massie Tells House IP Subcommittee Witnesses He’s ‘Appalled’ By Proposals to Rein in ITC’s Patent Powers
- CAFC Invalidates Remaining Claim on Data Transmission Patent, Remands Substitute Claims for Collateral Estoppel Determination