I don’t really know why we need the Federal Circuit anymore. Witness the denial of en banc rehearing in Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC on July 3. This denial of rehearing provoked eight separate opinions, with no single opinion achieving more than four judges in support. With 12 judges deciding whether to rehear the case en banc that means no single opinion gained support from more than one-third of the Court. And that opinion that gained the most support was a dissenting opinion, meaning those judges wanted to rehear the case and specifically said that the claims “should be held eligible”. In fact, as Retired Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit, Paul Michel, noted yesterday, “all 12 active judges agreed that the Athena patent should be deemed eligible, even though seven judges apparently felt helpless in view of Mayo.” The truth is the Federal Circuit is not helpless. The Federal Circuit is choosing to interpret Mayo—on the life science side—and Alice—on the software side—expansively. The Federal Circuit has one primary job, which is to bring stability and certainty to U.S. patent laws. It would be easy to distinguish both Mayo and Alice, but rather than recognize the peculiar facts of these cases as representing the most trivial of innovations, the Federal Circuit has used Mayo to destroy medical diagnostics and Alice to destroy software. More analytical prowess would be expected from a first-year law student.
Litigation
- US Inventor Backs SCOTUS Petition to Clarify Claim Construction Principles
- Ericsson Wins Anti-Interference Injunction Against Samsung in Texas FRAND Case
- Supreme Court Will Review Doctrine of Assignor Estoppel
- Patent Filings Roundup: IP Edge End-of-Year Filing Spree, WSOU Ends Year as Top Single-Entity Filer; AC Competitors Go to War Over a Cool Million
- Alice in 2020: Slashing Software Patents and Searching for Functional Language at the Federal Circuit (Part I)
Recent Posts
- ipAwarenessAssessment: Inventors and Business Owners Should Start Their IP Journey with this USPTO-NIST Tool
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, January 22: Iancu and Peter Step Down from USPTO, CJEU Asked Whether Preliminary Injunction Standard Burdens Patent Owners, SCOTUS Denial Leaves Invalidation of Idenix Genus Patent Claims Untouched
- US Inventor Backs SCOTUS Petition to Clarify Claim Construction Principles
- Iancu Says Goodbye, Urges Commitment to ‘American Innovation Renaissance’
- Biden’s Opportunity to Protect American Innovation