Insights
Notes from the research desk.
Landmark patent judgments, explained through the facts, the courts’ reasoning, and their practical implications for innovators and IP teams.
- Research
- Analysis
- IP Decisions
Stacked, Bonded, Separated: How Claim Wording Saved BeSang’s 3D Memory Patent
How precise claim wording saved BeSang’s 3D memory patent from six obviousness challenges by Micron and Intel at the Federal Circuit.
Found in Nature, Claimed as an Invention: Why ‘Isolated NR’ Wasn’t Enough
Why isolating nicotinamide riboside from milk wasn’t enough: lessons from ChromaDex v. Elysium on product-of-nature patents and claim drafting. A practical examination of natural products, marked differences and patent claim drafting under U.S. law
Impression Products v. Lexmark (2017): Patent exhaustion and resale
How authorized domestic and international sales affect patent rights over an item’s later use and resale.
Apple v. Samsung: Design patents and damages
The 2016 Supreme Court decision explains why the relevant article of manufacture may be a component rather than the entire finished product.
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014): Patent eligibility and claim drafting
An analysis of abstract ideas, generic computer implementation, and the practical drafting lessons of the Mayo–Alice framework.
AMP v. Myriad Genetics (2013): Gene patents and naturally occurring DNA
Understand why isolated naturally occurring DNA and laboratory-created cDNA received different treatment under Section 101.
Mayo v. Prometheus (2012): Diagnostics and laws of nature
A natural biological correlation paired with routine steps does not automatically become a patent-eligible diagnostic invention.
Bilski v. Kappos (2010): Business methods and abstract ideas
Why the machine-or-transformation test is a useful clue rather than the exclusive test for patent-eligible processes.
KSR v. Teleflex (2007): A flexible approach to obviousness
The Supreme Court rejected a rigid combination test and reaffirmed a practical, evidence-based inquiry into predictable uses of known technology.
eBay v. MercExchange (2006): Permanent injunctions in patent cases
A finding of infringement does not automatically produce an injunction. This judgment explains the traditional four-factor equitable inquiry.
Markman v. Westview Instruments (1996): Who interprets patent claims?
Why claim construction belongs to the judge, and how that allocation shapes patent infringement litigation.
Diamond v. Diehr (1981): Computer-implemented industrial processes
How a computer-assisted rubber-curing process illustrates the importance of assessing patent claims as a whole.
Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980): Patenting engineered organisms
Explore the distinction between discovering a natural organism and creating a human-made biological invention under Section 101.
Graham v. John Deere (1966): The foundation of patent obviousness
The Graham framework structures obviousness around prior art, the claimed differences, ordinary skill, and objective evidence of non-obviousness.
When Does a Database Update Become a Patentable Invention?
BT Americas v. Palo Alto Networks: Why the Federal Circuit affirmed that a dynamic network-security patent was obvious over earlier filtering systems.
Subscribe