We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics. If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
USA - May 30 2012
In affirming a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board) decision that affirmed an examiner’s rejection of claims as being inherently anticipated, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reiterated that inherent anticipation requires enablement, but does not require that the inherent features are appreciated.
USA - March 30 2012
Speaking through Justice Breyer, a unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (reversing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) held that claims directed to a blood-testing method are invalid because they do not define patent-eligible subject matter.
USA - March 22 2012
In a move that could have a significant impact on the fields of personalized medicine and medical diagnostics, the Supreme Court of the United States recently held claims to a blood test were invalid because they did not define patent-eligible subject matter.
USA - November 30 2011
In reviewing a district court action under 35 USC § 146 subsequent to an interference decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court may take new evidence and determine priority de novo.
USA - October 31 2011
In reviewing an interference decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the claim term “a” does not necessarily mean “one or more than one.”
