Source: https://www.hdp.com/blog/2018/01/24/at-the-bench-patent-law-2017-takeaways/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:01:02+00:00

Document:
Problem: It has become increasingly difficult to fend off validity challenges when asserting diagnostic method claims. Claims directed to methods of determining risk or disease states relying on naturally-occurring correlations and using conventional techniques are unlikely to survive a patentability challenge.
Solution 1: Consider including treatment steps in method claims, but avoid reciting mental process steps (e.g., diagnosing, comparing, etc.), which are likely to lead to a finding of patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Problem: The USPTO takes an unreasonably broad stance in interpreting a claim term to read on the prior art.
Problem: In the past, it has been difficult to challenge USPTO obviousness rejections that rely on routine optimization.
Problem: The USPTO finds a new compound formed from a known process to be obvious by relying on inherency.
2018: The Future of IPRs & PGRs?
Issues: The patent Owner in Oil States has asked the court to consider (1) whether it violates the separation of powers to have an Article I administrative tribunal (the USPTO PTAB) making decisions about patent validity — an issue traditionally entrusted to the Article III courts; and (2) whether a patentee has a right to a jury trial when issues of validity are at stake. The Court has agreed to consider both questions.
Beware: The outcome of these cases could be monumental. In Oil States, the Court could substantially reverse the Federal Circuit and potentially could find that the entire USPTO post-grant review system created by the AIA is unconstitutional. On the other hand, if the Court were to reverse Oil States, then reviewing SAS Institute would be rather pointless. Because the Court granted certiorari in both cases, it seems to suggest that the Court will not disassemble the USPTO post-grant review system in its entirety. Oral arguments were heard on November 27, 2017 and a decision is expected in 2018.
 See Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC., 859 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017); USPTO, Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Life Sciences, May 4, 2016, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-may-2016-ex.pdf.
 See In re Smith Int’l, 871 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
 See In re Stepan Co., 868 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
 See Millennium Pharm. v. Sandoz Inc., 862 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
 Impression Prods. v. Lexmark Int’l, 137 S. Ct. 1523, 581 U.S. ___ (2017).
 TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Grp., 137 S. Ct. 1514, 581 U.S. ___ (2017); see also In Re Micron Tech., Inc., 875 F.3d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (indicating that TC Heartland was a change in the controlling law, meaning it was unavailable as a waivable venue defense until May 2017).
 Life Tech. Corp. v. Promega Corp., 137 S. Ct. 734, 581 U.S. ___ (2017).
 SCA Hygiene Prods. v. First Quality Baby Prods., 137 S. Ct. 954, 581 U.S. ____ (2017).
 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (codified as amended in scattered sections of 35 U.S.C.), enacted on September 16, 2011.
 Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 855 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
 Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Meds., Inc., 845 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
 SAS Inst. v. Complementoft, LLC, 825 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), cert. granted sub nom. SAS Inst. v. Matal, No. 16-969 (2016); Oil States v. Greene’s Energy Group, 639 Fed. App’x 639 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

References: § 101
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.