The following post comes from Liz Velander, a recent graduate of Scalia Law and a Research Assistant at CPIP.
By Liz Velander
The Supreme Court finally reached a determination in the decade-long dispute between two of the biggest technology companies in the world, Google and Oracle. Read more
The following post comes from Terence Yen, a 4E at Scalia Law and a Research Assistant at CPIP.
By Terence Yen
In his new paper, Patent Eligibility and Investment, Professor David Taylor of the SMU Dedman School of Law explores whether the Supreme Court’s recent patent eligibility cases have changed the behavior of venture capital and private equity investment firms. Read more
Last week, a group of CPIP scholars filed an amicus brief in Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, a case currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The patents at issue cover diagnostic tests used to assess a person’s risk of developing cardiovascular disease. Read more
CPIP Founder Adam Mossoff filed an amicus brief today on behalf of 27 law professors in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, a patent case pending in the Supreme Court. Oil States is challenging the constitutionality of proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to determine the validity of an issued patent. Read more
Last week, CPIP Senior Scholar Adam Mossoff and I filed an amicus brief on behalf of 15 law professors, including CPIP’s Devlin Hartline, Chris Holman, Sean O’Connor, Kristen Osenga, and Mark Schultz. We urge the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in TDE Petroleum v. Read more
By Andrew Baluch[1] & Devlin Hartline
President Donald Trump will soon announce his nominee to fill the vacancy left at the Supreme Court by late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. On September 23, 2016, the Trump campaign revealed that there are twenty-one candidates under consideration for the nomination. Read more
By Adam Mossoff and Kevin Madigan
Following the Supreme Court’s four decisions on patent eligibility for inventions under § 101 of the Patent Act, there has been much disruption and uncertainty in the patent system. The patent bar and most stakeholders in the innovation industries have found the Supreme Court’s decisions in Alice Corp. Read more
The following post, by Robert R. Sachs, first appeared on the Bilski Blog, and it is reposted here with permission.
It’s been one year since the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. On its face the opinion was relatively conservative, cautioning courts to “tread carefully” before invalidating patents, and emphasizing that the primary concern was to avoid preemption of “fundamental building blocks” of human ingenuity. Read more
By Patent Publius
Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Ariosa v. Sequenom, a closely-watched biotechnology case with significant repercussions for patent-eligibility analysis generally. Unfortunately, the Federal Circuit misapplies the Supreme Court’s analytical framework from Mayo v. Read more
Last week, a group of law professors wrote a