Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today’s report highlights:
- an article about how the “Federal Circuit on Friday appeared unlikely to overturn an injunction removing from the market a NeoGenomics Laboratories Inc. cancer screening test due to a pair of Natera Inc. patents”;
- an article highlighting a Federal Circuit ruling that, “though marked non-precedential, arguably expands the application of the abstract idea exception to patentability under 35 U.S.C. §101 for blockchain technologies even when those patents are claiming the use of specialized, non-generic computer hardware”; and
- an article discussing the Federal Circuit’s holding “that a California federal judge wasn’t wrong to deny an injunction request after declaring that a ‘substantial question of validity’ had been raised over a patent covering a way of testing the durability of a heart valve.”
Annelise Gilbert wrote an article for Bloomberg law about how the “Federal Circuit on Friday appeared unlikely to overturn an injunction removing from the market a NeoGenomics Laboratories Inc. cancer screening test due to a pair of Natera Inc. patents.” According to Gilbert, “Chief Circuit Judge Kimberly A. Moore seemed unpersuaded by NeoGenomics’ argument that it’s in the public’s interest to keep its test on the market, and questioned the evidence about how its test could detect more cancers than Natera’s.”
Steve Brachmann authored an article for IP Watchdog highlighting a Federal Circuit ruling that, “though marked non-precedential, arguably expands the application of the abstract idea exception to patentability under 35 U.S.C. §101 for blockchain technologies even when those patents are claiming the use of specialized, non-generic computer hardware.” Brachmann notes that the decision in Rady v. Boston Consulting Group, Inc. holds that a patent entitled “Physical Item Mapping to Blockchain Framework” “did not meaningfully explain how the various components are configured and combined.”
Andrew Karpan wrote an article for Law360 discussing the Federal Circuit’s holding “that a California federal judge wasn’t wrong to deny an injunction request after declaring that a ‘substantial question of validity’ had been raised over a patent covering a way of testing the durability of a heart valve.” Karpan highlights how Judge Lourie noted in the decision for the court that there “was enough of a dispute for the appeals court” after ViVitro lawyers “maintained that ‘years before the patent’s priority date, all commercially available heart valve testers already included’ the features cited in the patent.”