[Editor’s Note: Bud Mathis is counsel for Killian]. The average attorney reading the recent opinion penned by Judge Chen and joined by Judges Taranto and Clevenger in In re Killian (Appeal 21-2113) might agree with Judge Chen’s conclusion that, “[w]hile there are close cases under the Alice/Mayo standard, the ’042 application does not present such a close case[.]” To this statement, I, Killian’s counsel, respond that, every time any claim comes close, the Federal Circuit engages in a predictable fiction in which the court: (1) announces that a claim is directed to “a something” described in such a broad and vague manner that “the something” barely resembles the claim at issue, (2) declares that “the something” that barely resembles the claim at issue is “abstract” based on no evidence or analysis, and then (3) declares that the remaining claim limitations lack an inventive concept.
Litigation
- 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
- This Year is Poised to Be a Landmark One for Tattoo Copyright Litigation
Recent Posts
- 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
- SCOTUS Sustains Blow to Patent Prosecution Practice in Denying Juno v. Kite Rehearing
- Opinion: Restoring The Road Less Traveled – American Invention at a Crossroad
- An Alternative to Claim Mirroring in Initial Patent Application Filing
- Bristol Myers Says AstraZeneca’s Imjudo Infringes Yervoy Patent