Here’s the latest.

A Patent Emergency

Reported by Dennis Crouch on

In Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co. the Federal Circuit found Chamberlain’s patent for a garage-door-opener ineligible since by the time the patent was filed, all three listed key elements were “generally well understood in the art” and the broad concept of communicating information wirelessly, without more, was an abstract idea.

Chamberlain claims the Federal Circuit improperly expanded the narrow exceptions for patent eligibility, failed to assess the claim as a whole, and created an elaborate test. The petition to the Supreme Court calls for immediate action, labeling the situation as a patent emergency:

[T]here is no time. Innovators are adapting their behavior right now to the Federal Circuit’s new patent-hostile regime. Investors are deciding now to withhold investments they would have made before the Federal Circuit changed the law. Waiting any longer to intervene could inflict irreparable harm on U.S. industry

Federal Circuit Oks Arthrex Do-Over in Apple Decryption Case

Reported by Michelle Casady on

The patent dispute between Personalized Media Communication (PMC) and Apple began in July 2015. The Federal Circuit vacated the Patent Trials and Appeal Board decision that Apple had shown PMC’s decryption patents are invalid. The Federal Circuit remanded the case for a new hearing before different PTAB judges, stating:

…the board should consider the October Arthrex ruling and “may also consider” the circuit court’s March ruling in another case involving these same parties that vacated a win for Apple Inc. after holding the board used an incorrect claim construction.

For more on Personalized Media Communications LLC v. Apple Inc., see our coverage.

Federal Circuit Dismisses Court Challenges to Nonfinal PTO Decisions

Reported by Blake Brittain on

On Friday, in Odyssey Logistics & Tech. Corp. v. Iancu, the Federal Circuit held that the provider of supply chain services couldn’t challenge two adverse, nonfinal Patent Office (PTO) decisions in federal court. Blake Brittain provided the following explanation for the conclusion:

The Federal Circuit affirmed that the [district] court lacked jurisdiction over the patent rejection claims because they weren’t based on final PTO decisions … ‘Without such final action from the PTO, the APA does not entitle Odyssey to judicial review.’

For more on this case, see our coverage.