Tag Archives: s. 101

American Axle & Manufacturing v. Neapco Holdings–Part II

Posted on January 13, 2021 by Warren Woessner

In my first post on American Axle’s Petition for cert., I focused on the substantive arguments of the parties. Almost as interesting is Part 5 of the Petition, in which AA argues that this is a good case for the … Continue reading →

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged s. 101, s. 112 | Leave a comment

XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, Inc. – Building on Illumina v. Ariosa

Posted on September 8, 2020 by Warren Woessner

In XY v. Trans Ova Genetics, Inc., Appeal No. 2019-1789 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2020), a panel of Wallach, Plager and Stoll reversed the district court’s finding that claims to an improved method of cell sorting are patent ineligible under … Continue reading →

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged Alice, s. 101, The State of Patent Eligibility | Leave a comment

AAM v. Neapco – Part IV – Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied – “Bad Vibrations”

Posted on August 14, 2020 by Warren Woessner

This post will briefly discuss the Fed. Cir.’s denial of rehearing en banc – which left the modified panel opinion stand. The lengthy panel opinion has been the subject of my last three posts, and you should read them before … Continue reading →

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged s. 101, s. 112, The State of Patent Eligibility | Leave a comment

AAM v. Neapco – Part III – The Dissent Faces a “Perfect Storm” of Conflated Doctrines

Posted on August 11, 2020 by Warren Woessner

Since most of my last post discussing Judge Moore’s dissent focused on her criticism of the majority’s conclusion that the claimed invention—placing a tuned liner into a hollow “propshaft” to attenuate two modes of vibration—was directed to Hooke’s law and … Continue reading →