Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article about “[b]iotechnology giant Amgen . . . arguing that Sanofi is a walking contradiction when it comes to the patent challenger’s stance on enablement requirements”;
- another article about a Federal Circuit decision finding “Google LLC must litigate a patent infringement lawsuit brought by telecom startup Flypsi Inc. in Waco, Texas, rather than San Francisco”; and
- a third article about “how to handle AI inventions from a policy perspective.”
Jasmin Jackson wrote an article for Law360 about “[b]iotechnology giant Amgen . . . arguing that Sanofi is a walking contradiction when it comes to the patent challenger’s stance on enablement requirements.” Jackson reported how Amgen, whose case will be heard before the Supreme Court later this month, has been “criticizing the ‘idea of genus claims’ — a patent covering not only one specific chemical but also related chemicals — while [Sanofi is] also protecting its own inventions through the same avenue.”
Kelcee Griffis authored an article about the Federal Circuit decision In re Google LLC finding “Google LLC must litigate a patent infringement lawsuit brought by telecom startup Flypsi Inc. in Waco, Texas, rather than San Francisco.” Griffis explained how a Federal Circuit “panel found that West Texas Judge Alan D. Albright reasonably denied Google’s transfer motion based on the location of potential witnesses and employees of both companies, as well as other factors” in favor of keeping the case in Texas. Griffis highlighted Judge Albright’s original finding, which the Federal Circuit agreed with, that “[s]ix West Coast Google witnesses would be more inconvenienced having to travel to Waco, but three Flyp employees in North Texas and three more Google employees in Western Texas would have an easier time.”
John Villasenor wrote an article for the Brookings Institution about “how to handle AI inventions from a policy perspective.” Villasenor “provide[d] four options for addressing AI inventions,” with the first option “deem[ing] them unpatentable on the grounds that patenting them would require listing a non-human inventor in violation of the Patent Act.” Villasenor explained how his “second option is to deem AI inventions patentable by revising the Patent Act to allow AI systems to be named as inventors or co-inventors,” which “would require Congress to make a fundamental change to U.S. patent law.” Villasenor outlined his third idea, which “is to modify patent law to include an ‘invention made for hire’ framework analogous to ‘work made for hire’ in copyright.” Finally, Villasenor described his fourth idea, which “is to deem AI inventions patentable under an expanded understanding of conception.”