Few lawyers have tried patent eligibility, 35 U.S.C. Section 101, to a jury. Our research found just four such cases since the Supreme Court created its muddled two-step test in Alice v. CLS Bank. In every one of those, the jury issued a pro-ineligibility verdict, while none resulted in a final Section 101 determination either way. Understanding how that issue has been handled at and after trial is important for practitioners with cases where Section 101 is at issue, which has become increasingly common.
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
- 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
- New Federal Law and FTC Rule Will Imperil Trade Secret Protection