IPWatchdog.com is in the process of transitioning to a newer version of our website. Please be patient with us while we work out all the kinks.

Posts Tagged: "Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund"

Eagle Forum Event Participants Delve into Patent Eligibility ‘Goulash’

The extreme uncertainty that U.S. patent eligibility “validity goulash” jurisprudence has caused is wreaking havoc on inventors, especially those working on emerging technologies. It is also hindering patent owners’ ability to enforce their property rights, investment and licensing deal-making, and giving China advantages in global competitiveness. And it’s likely to get worse before it gets better. Those were takeaways from the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund’s (EFELDF) “The Sorry State of Patentability: ‘Anything Under the Sun Made by Man’ No More” program in Washington, D.C. The September 29 event’s panelists considered patent eligibility from the Chakrabarty decision, which ruled a manmade living microorganism was patent-eligible, to dubious, damaging, judicially-created exceptions in such cases as Bilski, Mayo, Alice, Myriad and American Axle. The participants made painfully clear that the Alice-Mayo Framework doesn’t work and course correction is long overdue.

Commenters on Bayh-Dole Rule Object to Mention of ‘Pricing’ in March-In Provision

Two organizations with which I work have filed comments with NIST on its Bayh-Dole regulatory proposals. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, approaches completion of its two-and-a-half-year effort known as the Return on Investment Initiative, as the regulatory revision stage nears its close. NIST has conducted a commendable process and proposed mostly constructive or reasonable updating to rules associated with the Bayh-Dole Act. But one proposal puts at risk the continued success of the storied law for democratizing technology transfer and commercializing inventions coming from federally sponsored research. That is, this law facilitates bringing to practical use inventions that otherwise would sit on shelves.

A Look at the Chrimar Amici: Inventors and IP Organizations Advocate for Rehearing En Banc as Federal Circuit Calls for ALE Response

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) invited ALE USA Inc. to respond to Chrimar System Inc.’s petition for rehearing en banc. Five amici consisting of inventors and intellectual property advocates have now filed amicus curiae briefs  in support of Chrimar and the petition for rehearing. In September, the CAFC affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision in Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. ALE that rendered a previously affirmed jury verdict null and void. The heavily contested decision found the PTAB, an executive administrative agency, vacating the judicial verdict of an Article III court. According to FedCircuitBlog, there are currently 17 pending petitions for en banc rehearing with the Federal Circuit, while 22 petitions have been denied between August and November 2019. Of the 22 petitions denied, nine included a call for response, or 41% of denied petitions. Thus, while not a sure indicator that the court will grant the petition, the court’s invitation for response in Chrimar is at least a necessary step toward that goal. Here is what the amici are saying.

Invest Pic v. SAP America, Inc. Amicus Brief Takes on CAFC’s ‘Physical Realm’ Test

Among the seven amicus curiae briefs filed Monday with the U.S. Supreme Court in InvestPic, LLC, v. SAP America, Inc., Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund’s brief argues that the case demands a hearing because the Federal Circuit has added yet another extra-statutory test to the already distorted patentability jurisprudence. In a decision of May 15, 2018 authored by Judge Taranto, the Federal Circuit found the patent claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,349,291 invalid because they were directed to an abstract idea and lacked an inventive concept necessary to save the invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In the course of its opinion, the Federal Circuit created a “physical realm” test, which is nowhere to be found in 35 U.S. Code Section 101, having been wholly conjured by judges.