The following post comes from Liz Velander, a recent graduate of Scalia Law and a Research Assistant at CPIP. By Liz Velander The Supreme Court finally reached a determination in the decade-long dispute between two of the biggest technology companies in the world, Google and Oracle. Many have long-awaited the Court’s decision in this case, […]
Category: Supreme Court
The following post comes from Terence Yen, a 4E at Scalia Law and a Research Assistant at CPIP. By Terence Yen In his new paper, Patent Eligibility and Investment, Professor David Taylor of the SMU Dedman School of Law explores whether the Supreme Court’s recent patent eligibility cases have changed the behavior of venture capital […]
Last week, a group of CPIP scholars filed an amicus brief in Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, a case currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The patents at issue cover diagnostic tests used to assess a person’s risk of developing cardiovascular disease. The U.S. Patent & […]
Last week, CPIP Senior Scholar Adam Mossoff and I filed an amicus brief on behalf of 15 law professors, including CPIP’s Devlin Hartline, Chris Holman, Sean O’Connor, Kristen Osenga, and Mark Schultz. We urge the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in TDE Petroleum v. AKM Enterprise and reaffirm that any analysis of an invention must be of the claimed invention […]
By Andrew Baluch[1] & Devlin Hartline President Donald Trump will soon announce his nominee to fill the vacancy left at the Supreme Court by late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. On September 23, 2016, the Trump campaign revealed that there are twenty-one candidates under consideration for the nomination. Below is a summary of the intellectual property […]
Last week, a group of law professors wrote a letter to the acting Librarian of Congress in which they claim that the current FCC proposal to regulate cable video navigation systems does not deprive copyright owners of the exclusive rights guaranteed by the Copyright Act. The letter repeats arguments from response comments they filed along with […]
By Adam Mossoff and Kevin Madigan Following the Supreme Court’s four decisions on patent eligibility for inventions under § 101 of the Patent Act, there has been much disruption and uncertainty in the patent system. The patent bar and most stakeholders in the innovation industries have found the Supreme Court’s decisions in Alice Corp. v. […]
The following post, by Robert R. Sachs, first appeared on the Bilski Blog, and it is reposted here with permission. It’s been one year since the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. On its face the opinion was relatively conservative, cautioning courts to “tread carefully” before invalidating patents, and emphasizing that the […]
By Patent Publius Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Ariosa v. Sequenom, a closely-watched biotechnology case with significant repercussions for patent-eligibility analysis generally. Unfortunately, the Federal Circuit misapplies the Supreme Court’s analytical framework from Mayo v. Prometheus, striking down Sequenom’s important innovation for the prenatal diagnosis of fetal abnormalities. The shame […]
By far the most important takeaway from today’s Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank is the Court’s acknowledgment that “many computer-implemented claims are formally addressed to patent-eligible subject matter.” Despite failing to alleviate the profound confusion caused by its recent §101 analysis in cases like Bilski, Myriad, Mayo, and plenty of earlier […]