Here’s the hypothetical: A patent application has been filed for a new medical device. The device reads various physiological signals from a patient and presents, with previously unheard-of accuracy and reliability, the condition of the patient’s immune system.
Your client, who made a heavy investment in research and development of this device, wants U.S. patent protection, and is willing to pursue remedies in court if necessary.
A patent application has been filed. The subject matter has been claimed as a device and as a method. The claimed method recites actions performed with the physical components of the device.
To your client’s disappointment, a hypothetical examiner has rejected the claims as patent ineligible under section 101. The examiner relied principally upon the case of Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2018), concluding that the method claims and the device claims “are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, namely, collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.” If the “directed to” inquiry means that patent eligibility depends upon what the device does, then the examiner has a legitimate point invoking the Electric Power case. Your client’s device does indeed collect information, analyze that information, and display the results of the analysis. Even though the examiner had a legitimate point, that does not mean the examiner is correct; but it does mean that there is a good chance that the examiner will not reverse the stated position on ineligibility. You have, therefore, advised your client of the
- How French and California Contract Law Would Interpret SEP Patent Owner Obligations Under the ETSI Licensing Declaration
- NYIPLA Tells Supremes IP Lawyers Need Attorney-Client Privilege for Dual-Purpose Communications
- A Guide to Disclosures in Delaware Patent Litigation in the Face of Pending Federal Circuit Review
- CAFC Expressly States Patentee Disclaimers During IPR are Not Binding on the PTAB’s Patentability Analysis
- Disruptive Startups Cannot Survive in a Post-AIA Patent Landscape
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, December 2: Court of Federal Claims Rules CDC Patents Breached Gilead Agreements; Eleventh Circuit Affirms Trademark Win for Viacom; and Delaware Litigation Funding Case Heats Up at CAFC
- Former Commerce, USPTO Heads Push for U.S. to Lead Opposition to Extending WTO’s COVID IP Waiver
- Patent Experts Urge Kanter to Reject Calls to Scrap Avanci Business Review Letter
- Answering the Question, ‘What is the Conservative View of Patent Rights?’
- USPTO, Copyright Office Joint Study on NFTs Could Help Dispel Confusion About IP Ownership in Media Content Underlying Digital Assets