Source: https://autm.net/about-tech-transfer/advocacy/court-decisions
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:05:42+00:00

Document:
The U.S. Supreme Court has tackled a number of issues that impact the patent system and protection of intellectual property.
An inter partes review (IPR) procedure by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) does not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution. This decision re-affirmed the PTO’s authority to conduct IPR procedures.
The Court created a two-part test for determining the copyright eligibility of “a feature incorporated into the design of a useful article.
Laches cannot be used as a defense against damages within six years of the filing of a patent infringement complaint (35 U.S.C. §286).
The “substantial portion” language of §271(f)(1) of the Patent Act of 1952 refers to a quantitative measurement, not a qualitative measurement. Therefore, a single component of a multi-component invention does not constitute a “substantial portion” of the patented invention under §271(f)(1), and therefore supplying a single component of a patented multi-component invention does not infringe on the patent.
When a patentee sells his/her patented product, he/she cannot subsequently enforce the patent on that sold product regardless of any restrictions that the patentee attempts to impose on a subsequent user/purchaser. The patent is said to be exhausted for that sold product, and the purchaser may use or sell that product without fear of infringing on the previous patent of the sold product.
For domestic corporations, civil actions for patent infringement requires the case to be brought in the state of incorporation of the defendant corporation under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
Once an IPR is initiated, the PTAB must rule on all challenged claims.
The federal law 15 U.S.C. §1052(a), which prohibits the registration of trademarks that use disparaging language, is a violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
The broadest reasonable construction standard is a valid standard in an IPR proceeding and, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §314(d), the determination by the Director [of the Patent Office] whether to institute an IPR is final and non-appealable.
Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. ET AL. v. Apple Inc.
Damages in a design infringement suit may be based on an individual component of the design invention as opposed to the entire design invention.
An intermediated settlement implemented by a practitioner on a generic computer, is not patent eligible under 35 USC §101 because it is an abstract idea. The mere act of using a generic computer to implement the intermediated settlement does not transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible invention.An intermediated settlement implemented by a practitioner on a generic computer, is not patent eligible under 35 USC §101 because it is an abstract idea. The mere act of using a generic computer to implement the intermediated settlement does not transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible invention.
The Supreme Court unanimously held that human genes cannot be patented, even when isolated from the body, a ruling expected to quickly expand access to genetic testing while potentially allowing inventors to retain rights to artificially created DNA. Read the decision.
AUTM's Position — AUTM agrees with both parties and the Court that diagnostic tests should be available for the benefit of the public. It supports the encouragement of rapid medical innovation, applied and practical biotechnology, university basic genetic research, collaboration among universities and the medical community and translation of genetic discoveries into tangible medical tests. AUTM believes in the importance of intellectual property protection and remaining competitive with other countries in developing lifesaving technologies. Read more.
The AMP v. USPTO Remand: Déjà Vu as Federal Circuit Majority Reaffirms that Myriad’s Isolated DNA Sequences Are Patent-Eligible, Read the full analysis by Eric W. Guttag, Eric W. Guttag IP Law Office.
Supreme Court Says Human Genes Aren't Patentable by Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall of the Wall Street Journal, 13 June 2013. Read more.
A U.S. federal appeals court has once again affirmed the right of Myriad Genetics Inc to patent two genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer, Reuters, Aug. 16. Read more.
The Supreme Court’s March 20, 2012 decision in Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. (2012), invalidates patent claims when they invoke a law of nature but do not “confine their reach to particular applications of those laws."
Under the Patent Act of 1952, a patent is presumed valid. If someone challenges the validity, they must show that it is invalid; the person or company that has the patent does not have to show that it is valid. The U.S. Supreme Court held that invalidity defense be proved by clear and convincing evidence.
The Court held that title in a patented invention vests first in the inventor, even if the inventor is a researcher at a federally funded lab subject to the Bayh-Dole Act. Inventors originally own inventions they make, and contractual obligations to assign those rights to third parties are secondary.

References: §286
 §271
 §271
 § 1400
 §1052
 §314
 v. 
 §101
 §101
 v. 
 v.