Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Mayo Collaborative Services et al. v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), the lower courts have repeatedly found patent claims for medical diagnostic methods to be ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C §101. In Mayo, the Supreme Court held that a claim for correlating levels of a drug metabolite in a patient’s blood to drug efficacy was not patent eligible under §101, because the claim at issue merely recited a law of nature — one of the judicial exceptions to patent eligible subject matter under §101.
*May exclude premium content
By Jonathan Moskin
In 2013, the PTO adopted a new policy under which any party commencing a de novo proceeding challenging a PTO decision would be responsible to pay a pro rata share of the salaries of the government attorneys working on the matter. On Dec. 11, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the PTO’s new interpretation of the Patent Act and held that the American Rule, a centuries-old principle under which each party bears its own attorneys’ fees, does apply to this statute.
By Mary A. Donovan
In a recent trademark cancellation case that has drawn “human interest” attention in the news, the plaintiff appealed an adverse decision to the Federal Circuit. The plaintiff was not “kidding” when he expressed his opinion that the registered mark, described as “goats on a roof of grass,” is demeaning to goats which, in turn, is offensive to him.
By Shaleen J. Patel
Do Not Pass Go? U.S. Supreme Court to Review Federal Circuit’s Finding of Justiciability
By Matthew Calcagno
Documents are the lifeblood of any law firm. The documents that a firm produces are its greatest asset, especially the intellectual property — trade secrets, patent information, etc. — contained in those documents, yet firms historically have not made sufficient efforts to safeguard those documents from both internal and external threats.