Supreme Court Won’t Review CAFC Ruling that 35 USC § 271(f) Doesn’t Apply to Patented Processes

By Eric Guttag
January 14, 2010

You may recall that I wrote back in September of last year on the case of Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc. See CAFC Says “Patented Invention” Does Not Include Methods .  In Cardiac Pacemakers, all but one member of the en banc Federal Circuit ruled that 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) doesn’t apply to patented processes.  Judge Newman was the sole dissenting judge.

I commented at the end that article that:  “It remains to be seen whether the loser in Cardiac Pacemakers will take their cue from Newman’s dissenting opinion, and petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.”  Well, the loser did petition for cert to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has now spoken.  Unfortunately for the loser (and not a surprise to me), the Supreme Court spoke negatively on January 11, refusing to consider the Federal Circuit’s en banc ruling in Cardiac Pacemakers.

So ends this sad saga on that messy statute called 35 U.S.C. § 271(f).  May be it’s time for Congress to finally put a fork in this “cooked” statute.

*© 2010 Eric W. Guttag.

The Author

Eric Guttag

Eric Guttag  
Mr. Guttag has over 38 years of corporate and private intellectual property law experience on patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret and unfair competition matters, computer and Internet law, including patent application drafting, prosecution, and patentability studies; infringement and validity studies; international patent prosecution; patent and know-how licensing; consulting, confidentiality, clinical study and research agreements; trademark searches and opinions; trademark registration and prosecution; trademark freedom-to-use studies and trademark litigation and dispute resolution.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 1 Comment comments.