How does insignificant extra-solution activity affect patent eligibility?
Insignificant extra-solution activity can negatively impact patent eligibility. According to MPEP 2106.05(g), “As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.” This means that adding such activities to a claim does not transform an unpatentable principle into…
Read MoreWhat are the implications of deliberately suppressing material information in patent proceedings?
Deliberately suppressing material information in patent proceedings can have severe consequences, including the refusal to enforce patents. The MPEP 2015 cites Supreme Court precedents: “The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to enforce patents where deliberate steps were taken to suppress material information. See, e.g., Keystone Driller Co. v. Gen. Excavator Co., 290 U.S. 240, 19…
Read MoreHow does the Supreme Court’s KSR decision impact design patent obviousness analysis?
The Supreme Court’s decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), has significantly impacted the obviousness analysis for design patents. The MPEP states: “In KSR, the Supreme Court particularly emphasized “the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art,” and discussed…
Read More