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
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)
