About
CAFC Blog (www.cafcblog.com), an Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP resource, keeps practitioners up-to-date on the most recent IP decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. About Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP For more than...
Authors
The contributors to this blog are Andrews Kurth Kenyon Intellectual Property attorneys from throughout the country. Their backgrounds and areas of concentration allow them to provide comprehensive analyses of recent Federal Circuit Court opinions.  ...

Expenses Incurred by Government Attorneys during a 35 U.S.C. § 145 Appeal Can Be Recovered by the USPTO

NANTKWEST, INC. v. MATAL: June 23, 2017.  Before Prost, Dyk, and Stoll.   Takeaway: Expenses incurred by USPTO during a 35 U.S.C. § 145 appeal include a pro-rata share of the incurred attorneys’ fees. The American Rule denying attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party does not apply when applicable statute specifically and …

Enablement from a Provisional Application Must Be Supported by the Disclosure and Not Require Undue Experimentation by a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art

STORER v. CLARK: June 21, 2017.  Before Prost, Newman, and Dyk.   Takeaway: In order for a non-provisional patent application to be enabled by the provisional patent application from which it takes priority, the disclosure in the provisional patent application must enable one having ordinary skill to produce the claimed …

Contacts with a Forum State that Occurred Prior to the Issuance of a Patent are Not Sufficient to Confer Personal Jurisdiction for a Patent Infringement Case

NEXLEARN, LLC, v. ALLEN INTERACTIONS, INC.: June 19, 2017.  Before Moore, Schall, and Hughes   Takeaway: A defendant’s contacts with a forum state that occurred prior to the issuance of a patent are not sufficient to confer specific personal jurisdiction for a patent infringement case after the patent issues. Absent any …

Even Groundbreaking Medical Discoveries May Not Be Patentable

THE CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION, CLEVELAND HEARTLAB, INC., v. TRUE HEALTH DIAGNOSTICS LLC: No. 2016-1766; June 16, 2017.  Before Lourie, Reyna, and Wallach. Takeaway: Patent claims directed to observing a law of nature are patent-ineligible subject matter even if based on a valuable discovery. Service providers cannot be liable for contributory infringement if …

The Board’s Decision Finding Waterproof Leather Claims Unpatentable as Obvious Affirmed by the CAFC, a Person of Ordinary Skill Need Not Have the Same Motivation as the Patent’s Inventor

OUTDRY TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, v. GEOX S.P.A.: No. 2016-1769; June 16, 2017.  Before Dyk, Moore, and Rena. Takeaway: The motivation to combine inquiry is not limited to the problem faced by the inventor of a patent. Procedural Posture: Outdry appealed from the Board’s decision in an IPR finding that claims 1-15 of its …

Disclaimer

Unless otherwise indicated, lawyers listed on this blog are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. A past performance or prior result is no guarantee of a similar future result in another case or matter. Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP is responsible for the content of this blog and monitors comments. Andrews Kurth, the Andrews Kurth logo, Straight Talk is Good Business and Intelligent Energy are registered service marks of Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP. Andrews Kurth Kenyon and the Andrews Kurth Kenyon logo are service marks of Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP. Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP is a Texas limited liability partnership. Andrews Kurth Kenyon (UK) LLP is authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority of England and Wales (SRA Registration No.598542). Andrews Kurth (Middle East) DMCC is registered and licensed as a Free Zone company under the rules and regulations of DMCCA. Attorney Advertising. Neither the content on this website and/or blog nor any transmissions between you and Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP through this website and/or blog are intended to provide legal or other advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. In communicating with us through this website and/or blog, you should not provide any confidential information to us concerning any potential or actual legal matter that you may have. Before providing any such information to us, you must obtain approval to do so from one of our lawyers. By commenting on this website and/or blog (and thereby choosing to communicate with us without such prior approval), you understand and agree that Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP will have no duty to keep confidential any information you provide.