Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article discussing how an en banc petition “is drawing new attention to the question of when altered DNA becomes different enough from nature to be patented”;
- a blog post suggesting a recent Federal Circuit “opinion is a useful teaching vehicle on the patent/trade-secret interface”; and
- an article explaining how the “U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Artificial Intelligence Search Automated Pilot, or ASAP, program introduces earlier visibility into the prior art landscape by providing applicants with an automated search results notice prior to substantive examination.”
Christopher Yasiejko authored an article for Bloomberg Law discussing how an en banc petition “is drawing new attention to the question of when altered DNA becomes different enough from nature to be patented.” Yasiejko notes how some observers have said a panel’s decision gives patent owners “a road map for defending engineered biological materials and surviving early challenges.” Yasiejko highlights how the petition, however, argues “the panel went too far by letting routine manipulation of natural DNA serve as the basis for patent eligibility.” For more information on the case, check out the case page in REGENXBIO Inc. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc.
Dennis Crouch penned a blog post for PatentlyO suggesting a recent Federal Circuit “opinion is a useful teaching vehicle on the patent/trade-secret interface.” According to Crouch, it “reinforces the familiar rule that ideas placed in the public domain through a patent disclosure cannot be reclaimed as trade secrets.” For more information on this case, check out the opinion in International Medical Devices, Inc. v. Cornell.
Abdullah Akhtar and James De Vellis authored an article for Law360 explaining how the “U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Artificial Intelligence Search Automated Pilot, or ASAP, program introduces earlier visibility into the prior art landscape by providing applicants with an automated search results notice prior to substantive examination.” The authors explain how, “[r]ather than encountering prior art for the first time during examination, applicants may be positioned to consider the scope and direction of protection with greater awareness of the existing landscape at the outset.” The authors say the program “may be viewed as reflecting a shift in patent practice toward earlier, more informed strategic assessment.”