Patenting Medical Devices

Introduction This article is meant to be read in conjunction with my article Patentability Swamp.  In this prior article, I have discussed the newest USPTO Guidelines (October 17, 2019) pertaining to patenting matters that may incorporate patent ineligible material under 35 USC Section 101, i.e., natural law, natural products, natural phenomena or abstract ideas.  I have discussed the…

Read More →

Patentability Swamp

Introduction I have recently posted a blog of mechanical device patents becoming ensnared in the patentability swamp.  The swamp is the ineligibility of patenting “natural laws”, “natural phenomena” and “abstract ideas”.  This has followed the adverse rulings for patenting medical procedures and business methods. There has been another shift in the ground underlying this swamp.  Further guidance was issued from the USPTO…

Read More →

Mechanical Engineering Patents and Validity Goulash

Introduction If you thought that issues of natural law and abstract ideas were invalidating only medical device and treatment patents, think again.  The fog of natural law/natural phenomena/abstract ideas is descending upon “nuts and bolts” mechanical engineering.  It is no longer safe to pursue patent protection for vibration dampened drive shafts without encountering “validity goulash”.   Discussion Again…

Read More →

Patenting Medical Diagnostic Procedures

Introduction This article is a follow on to my July 19, 2019 post entitled Patenting Medical Devices and Procedures.  It may be useful to review this earlier blog post.  What prompts this new post is the pending petition of Athena Diagnostics Inc. regarding the invalidation of its patent for detecting a neurological disorder (Myasthenia gravis).  I discussed this case, Athena…

Read More →

Known Technology is Not Abstract Rev. 2

Introduction On August 26, 2019 I posted an article regarding “Known Technology Is Not Abstract”.  In that post I complained of the Federal Circuit determining a patent for an automatic garage door opener as being invalid since it utilized wireless technology and wireless technology was deemed to be a well understood technology and therefore an abstract…

Read More →

What’s Up Federal Circuit

Below is a post from Patent Attorney Gene Quinn, author of the blog IPWatchdog.com. Gene is complaining of the same topic of my Friday post entitled “Known Technology is Not Abstract” and regarding the absurd position of the several Federal Circuit Justices asserting inclusion of an “abstract idea” within a patent claim as defeating patent…

Read More →

Known Technology is not Abstract

Introduction Abstract ideas are not patentable.  This is simple statement has caused continued confusion and frustration.  The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that a garage door opening device that differs from the prior art only in that it utilizes “off the self” wireless communicating technology is an abstract idea.  Use of known technical devices…

Read More →

Patenting Medical Devices and Procedures

Introduction There is a great deal of valuable intellectual property associated with medical technology.  However the patent landscape is, in my opinion, unclear and unsettled.  Diagnostic procedures that utilize human biologic functions are denied patent protect because the procedures rely on “natural law”. I have tried to outline the problem using the actual wording of disputed patents…

Read More →

Software Patents

Introduction I recently shared a post stating that computer software is currently the subject matter of approximately 60% of patent applications.  This is a 50% increase since 2010. What is patentable computer software? What remains as a vexing problem is the continued muddled status of what comprises patentable software.  The Federal Circuit court complains that the US…

Read More →

Clarifying What are Patent Ineligible Abstract Ideas

Introduction: Intertwined with the long ambiguity of the scope of patent eligible software has been the difficulty in defining what are patent ineligible “abstract ideas”.  Recall 35 U.S.C. Section 101 states that all things invented by man are patentable subject matter except laws of nature, natural phenomena or abstract ideas.  These three items are referred to below as…

Read More →