Source: https://www.iplitigationcurrent.com/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:23:17+00:00

Document:
Subject matter eligibility jurisprudence under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been in flux in recent years, following the Supreme Court’s decisions in Mayo v. Prometheus and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. On February 26, 2019, the Federal Circuit in University of Florida Research Foundation v. General Electric (available at: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1284.Opinion.2-26-2019.pdf ) held that the challenged claim(s) directed to systems and methods for compiling patient physiologic data from hospital bedside machines were invalid under § 101 as failing steps 2A and 2B under Alice/Mayo. While the decision represents the first Federal Circuit opinion since the publication of the USPTO’s recent guidance addressing invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it does not specifically address that guidance, neither adopting the two-prong analysis nor rejecting it. Additionally, some may argue that the court’s opinion appears inconsistent with training documents used by the USPTO regarding similar claims.
Vibram – seller of the “FiveFinger” shoes – took an intellectual property insurance coverage dispute to the highest court of Massachusetts, and won. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the insurers must pay Vibram’s cost of defending a lawsuit brought by the family of the late marathoner, Abebe Bikila. Bikila earned his fame by winning the 1960 Olympic marathon barefoot. The underlying lawsuit stemmed from Vibram’s use of the Bikila name for some models of its “toed” shoes. According to the court, Vibram’s use of the Bikila name constituted use of another’s “advertising idea,” covered by the policies.
The heirs of Abebe Bikila’s estate brought the underlying action against Vibram in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The family alleged a number of claims all stemming from Vibram’s use of Bikila’s name, including violation of the Washington Personality Rights and the Washington Consumer Protection Acts, false designation of origin and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, and unjust enrichment. Vibram tendered defense of the case to its insurers.

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