Perhaps once believed immune from patent eligibility challenges, method of manufacturing patents, including those claims specific to manufacturing tangible goods, are now susceptible to challenges under Alice. The Federal Circuit marked this issue in American Axle, when a split panel held claims—directed to a method of manufacturing propeller shafts––ineligible. American Axle followed Chamberlain Group, when a unanimous Federal Circuit panel found claims—directed to a garage door controller—ineligible. More recently, in Palomar, the District of Massachusetts followed these cases and found claims—directed to a method of moving work pieces—ineligible. Do these cases push the Alice/Mayo test too far? Do they further conflate patent eligibility and obviousness? And where do these cases leave manufacturers when defending issued patents and looking to protect new methods? Join us as we discuss these cases and the patentable state of manufacturing methods.
We will cover:
Moderator:
Brooke Wilner
Speakers:
Timothy McAnulty
Jeffrey Totten
Time:
10:00 – 11:00 a.m. PDT
1:00 – 2:00 p.m. EDT
19:00 – 20:00 CEST
There is no charge to attend this program. Webinar access and dial-in information will be sent upon registration.
35 U.S.C. § 101, Obviousness (35 USC § 103), patent-eligible, patent ineligibility, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)
Hybrid Conference
2026 Patent Law Institute: Critical Issues & Best Practices – New York
October 29, 2026
New York
Conference
2nd Annual Forum on Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation USA & Canada
October 14-16, 2026
New York
Federal Circuit IP Blog
Federal Circuit Distinguishes Patent Eligibility Among Different Communications Systems Claims
October 5, 2026
Federal Circuit IP Blog
Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Obviousness Finding in DRAM Data Path Patent
October 5, 2026
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.