直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Webinar

Is Alice Pulling Manufacturing Patents Down the Rabbit Hole?

July 16, 2020

Webinar

View Webinar

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:

  • American Axle—the majority’s rationale and the dissent’s criticism
  • Chamberlain Group—why the Federal Circuit reversed
  • Palomar—how the abstract idea can conflate 101 and § 103
  • Practical considerations for enforcing and challenging manufacturing patents

Recorded: View On Demand

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. 

Tags

35 U.S.C. § 101, Obviousness (35 USC § 103), patent-eligible, patent ineligibility, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Related Industries

Chemicals, Industrials, and Materials

Manufacturing

Related Professionals

Timothy P. McAnulty
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4348
Email
Jeffrey C. Totten
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4232
Email

Related Insights

Conference

Patent Litigation Europe 2027

January 18-20, 2027

Amsterdam

Panel Discussion

2026 Advanced Patent Law Institute

December 3-4, 2026

Stanford

Conference

Life Sciences Patent Network North America Fall 2026

November 2-3, 2026

San Francisco

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

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

Articles

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update, March 2026

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: August 2026

September 29, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP