Posts Tagged: "SCOTUS"

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied certiorari to review a February ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) that held claims of ChromaDex, Inc.’s patent on an isolated form of vitamin B3 are directed to unpatentable subject matter under Section 101. The CAFC affirmed the Delaware district court’s grant of summary judgment for Elysium Health that the relevant claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,197,807, titled “Nicotinamide riboside kinase compositions and methods for using the same,” were invalid under Section 101 as being directed to a natural phenomenon, specifically, “compositions comprising isolated [NR], a naturally occurring vitamin present in cow milk.”

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday added another case to its docket that challenges the Chevron Doctrine, a decades-old principle instructing lower courts to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous laws. The Court said it will hear Relentless, Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce in tandem with an almost identical appeal brought by Rhode Island herring fishers. Mark your bingo card if you had “Rhode Island herring fishers.”

On October 10, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order list showing it had denied the petition for writ of certiorari filed in Personalized Media Communication, LLC v. Apple Inc. In denying the appeal, SCOTUS leaves in place a divided Federal Circuit ruling that improperly expanded prosecution laches doctrine according to Personalized Media (PMC). The cert denial also passes on the question of whether prosecution laches remains a valid defense to patent infringement in light of the Supreme Court’s 2017 ruling in SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a petition asking the justices to weigh in on whether the Lanham Act prohibits “the unauthorized use of a celebrity’s persona advertising third party brands with logos in a commercial motion picture as a trademark infringement?” The case stems from a suit brought by the partner of Christopher Jones, an actor in the 1960s, who was referenced in the film Once Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood (the film), written and directed by Quentin Tarantino. Jones starred in the television series, The Legend of Jesse James, and movies including 3 in the Attic and Wild in the Streets.

Recently, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property released a draft of the ‘‘Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023” (“PERA”) for the purpose of addressing the judicially-created exceptions to patent eligibility plaguing the country. Among the Senate’s findings are that patent eligibility jurisprudence requires significant clarification, the judicial exceptions are rendering an increasing number of inventions ineligible for patent protection, and Alice/Mayo is confusing and inconsistent. None of this is surprising. Alice/Mayo has been a resounding failure. However, of particular importance, the Senate bill has declared “All judicial exceptions to patent eligibility are eliminated.”

The Supreme Court decided Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi on May 18, 2023, nearly nine years after its decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Amgen was concerned with the enablement statute of the patent law, 35 U.S.C. § 112. In comparison, Alice was concerned with the eligibility statute of the patent law, 35 U.S.C. § 101, and has been highly criticized for creating a mess of patent eligibility. At first glance, these cases are distinguishable from one another, since they deal with different aspects of the patent laws. However, statutory interpretation and analysis should be the same in both instances.

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied the petition for certiorari brought by CareDX, Inc. in May asking it to review a 2022 decision holding certain claims of its patents directed to detection levels of donor cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in the blood of an organ transplant patient patent ineligible. Justice Bret Kavanaugh would have granted the petition, according to the Order List.

The third annual IPWatchdog LIVE conference opened with panels examining global trends in IP policy and a review of U.S. Supreme Court case law, as well as the presentation of the third annual Paul Michel Award, which each year honors a respected industry leader and advocate for fairness in the IP community. On a panel that detailed some of the most recent U.S. Supreme Court’s IP decisions, retired U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Judge Paul Michel described the arguably contradictory holdings in Google v. Oracle and Warhol v. Goldsmith as “useless” in terms of substantive guidance from the Court. “These two cases represent a failure on the part of the Supreme Court to provide meaningful guidance to users who need it now,” Michel said. Professor Llew Gibbons of the University of Toledo College of Law explained the holdings in each of the cases and concluded that “I couldn’t find a principled reason other than ‘we want to come out differently’” for the Court’s ruling in Warhol, considering the Google decision.

Amici have submitted briefs and a response has been filed in recent weeks with respect to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for review of a decision that said the USPTO was wrong to reject a trademark application for the mark TRUMP TOO SMALL. The February decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held the Office’s application of Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act to reject TRUMP TOO SMALL was unconstitutional. Specifically, the CAFC panel held that “applying section 2(c) to bar registration of [Steve] Elster’s mark unconstitutionally restricts free speech in violation of the First Amendment.”

The Supreme Court’s decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 143 S. Ct. 1243, 1248 (2023), found that antibody claims defined by their binding and blocking function lacked enablement…. The Supreme Court’s decision relied highly on the unpredictability of the art—scientists cannot always predict how substitutions of even single amino acids will affect the binding and/or blocking function of an antibody. The disclosed methods of identifying species within the scope of the claim were little more than “trial and error.”… The consensus seems to be that Amgen generally forecloses broad genus claims in the biotechnology field. The remaining questions are: Are patent applicants limited to claiming species (e., sequence listings)? What steps may a patent applicant take to obtain broader coverage?

HIP, Inc. recently filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Justices to review a May 2023 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decision holding an inventor’s contribution to a patent for methods of pre-cooking bacon and meat pieces did not satisfy the joint inventorship test because the contribution was “insignificant in quality.”

In an IPWatchDog post of September 6, 2022, Anthony Prosser and I traced the history of the doctrine of “Non-Statutory Judicially Created Obviousness-Type Double Patenting” (ODP). We confirmed (as its name indicates) that no Congressional statute has ever codified this doctrine. It is ultra vires because Congress has the sole right to create patent law…. In the Cellect decision issued yesterday, the Federal Circuit stretches the word “disclaimer” in Section154(b)(2)(B) beyond credibility as justification for the ODP doctrine itself and assumes that is what Congress was talking about without actually saying it (stating with agreement that “The Board also reasoned that terminal disclaimers arise almost exclusively in situations to overcome ODP rejections, and so Congress, by addressing terminal disclaimers in §154, effectively addresses ODP”).

The recently-concluded term of the U.S. Supreme Court featured four intellectual property decisions: one patent case, two trademark cases, and one copyright case. Three of the four opinions were unanimous, citing fundamental and time-honored precedents for support. The only dissent involved a copyright dispute centering on Andy Warhol’s use of a third-party photograph of Prince in his work. That case resulted in a highly charged debate between Justices Sotomayor and Kagan as to whether Warhol’s copying constituted transformative fair use.

One of the many amici who have filed briefs in a Supreme Court case asking the Court to overrule its precedent in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. told the justices last week that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is abusing the so-called Chevron doctrine “to bypass the procedures that ensure that the agency considers the public interest.” The “Chevron doctrine” says courts should defer to administrative agencies’ interpretation of the statutes delegated to them. In the 1984 ruling in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., the Supreme Court held that a court “may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation made by [the agency charged with administering the statute],” where the statute is ambiguous.

In Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, a unanimous Supreme Court sided with Jack Daniel’s and sent dog toy maker VIP Products scurrying away with its tail between its legs. The decision held that VIP’s commercial use of a dog toy, designed to look like a bottle of Jack Daniel’s whiskey, complete with droll variations on Jack Daniel’s trademarks, is not entitled to First Amendment protections for artistic expression under the “Rogers test.” Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F. 2d 994, 999 (2d Cir. 1989). Instead, it is subject to the Lanham Act’s likelihood-of-confusion test to determine if consumers would be likely to confuse VIP’s dog toy with Jack Daniel’s, no matter how parodic. While the justices felt that artistic expression versus trademark use was cut and dried in this instance, that is not always the case in litigation focused on NFTs and the Metaverse.