Posts Tagged: Eric Guttag
Ultramercial Revisited: Rader Throws Down the Gauntlet on Patent-Eligibility of Computer-Implemented Inventions*
In Ultramercial I and II, the patentee (Ultramercial) asserted that U.S. Pat. No. 7,346,545 (the ‘545 patent) was infringed by Hulu, LLC (“Hulu”), YouTube, LLC (“YouTube”), and WildTangent, …
AMP v. Myriad: Getting Beyond the Hype and Hyperbole*
By holding that Myriad’s claimed cDNA was patent-eligible, Thomas’ opinion reaffirms the major holding in Diamond v. Chakrabarty that claimed subject matter which truly only the “…
No Quanta of Solace for Farmer Bowman: Unlicensed Planting of Patented Seed Infringing Use, Not Patent Exhaustion*
n the case of Bowman v. Monsanto Co., Farmer Bowman may have believed that the “third time” would be “charm.” In two prior cases, Monsanto Co. v. …
Reverse Payments: Into the Belly Of The Hatch-Waxman Beast Part 3
“Reverse payment” cases are an outgrowth of a key feature I noted in my first article on the basics of Paragraph IV Certifications: the filing of an …
Carve Outs: Into The Belly of the Hatch-Waxman Beast Part 2
“Carve outs” essentially involve a situation where there is an FDA approved drug for which the generic drug maker seeks to market that drug, again through an …
A Primer on Paragraph IV Certifications: Into the Belly of the Hatch-Waxman Beast Part 1
In a moment of extreme weakness, I agreed to Gene’s request to doing a primer on Paragraph IV Certifications under the Drug Price Competition and Patent …
AMP v. Myriad: SCOTUS Must Remember What Case Is Not About*
As Myriad has correctly pointed out in its brief in opposition to the grant of certiorari, the question posed by the ACLU/PubPat (“Are Human Genes Patentable”) …
Voter Verified: Online Periodical Held to be Printed Publication
In the end, Voter Verified reached the correct result that the Benson article was a “printed publication” bar. But the “publicly accessible” doctrine relied upon by Judge …
RMail v. Amazon.com: Can Invalidity Based on 35 U.S.C. § 101 Be Properly Raised as a Defense in Litigation?*
As pointed out astutely by RMail is that the Supreme Court jurisprudence on patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have primarily involved ex parte prosecution appeals from the …
The Discordant En Banc Ruling in Akamai Technologies and McKesson Technologies Part II*
In challenging the correctness of the per curiam majority ruling, Judge Linn’s dissenting opinion makes four points. Point No. 1 is that the per curiam majority’s …
CAFC’s Joint Infringement Conundrum: The Discordant En Banc Ruling in Akamai Technologies & McKesson Technologies, Part 1*
In Akamai Technologies and McKesson Technologies (August 31, 2012), with an opinion over 30 pages long, a bare six judge per curiam majority found it unnecessary to resolve the joint …
AMP v. USPTO Remand: Déjà Vu as Federal Circuit Majority Reaffirms Myriad’s Isolated DNA Sequences Are Patent-Eligible*
The other point that also bears repeating (and quoting) from the majority opinion in the AMP remand is Judge Lourie’s response to the so-called “preemption” question: "…
Momenta Pharmaceuticals: The Hatch-Waxman “Safe Harbor” Widens to Include Post-FDA Approval Activity*
While the Supreme Court may have expanded the reach of the Hatch-Waxman “safe harbor,” the Medtronic and Merck cases only involved pre-marketing FDA approval activity. But the …
Bancorp Services: Further Fracturing of the Patent Eligibility Landscape for Business Methods and Systems*
In holding the method, system, and media claims of the ‘792 and ‘037 patents to “cover no more than abstract ideas and therefore do no recite patent-eligible subject matter,” …
Debunking the Gene Patent Mythology: Professor Holman’s Supplemental Brief in the AMP Remand*
Professor Holman not only teaches patent law at UMKC, but has a Ph.D. in biochemistry and molecular biology, as well as well as some post-doctoral drug …
