Microsoft Corporation v Proxyconn, Inc, - The “broadest reasonable interpretation standard” (“BRI”) standard is the standard for claim construction in Inter Partes Review IPR proceedings and newly substituted claims must be demonstrated to be patentable over the prior art of record.
Beginning May 13, 2015, U.S. entities will be able to file a single international application in a single language to obtain protection for up to 100 industrial designs in over 64 territories. Canadians with U.S. relations may be able to participate.
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, et al v Sandoz, Inc, et al, 574 US __ (2015) - United States Supreme Court clarified that claim construction can involve subsidiary factual disputes that are reviewed on a clear error standard, while the ultimate question of claim construction is reviewed de novo.
Google, Inc v Oracle America, Inc, 14-410 - This case would put at issue whether Java’s method headers are subject to copyright protection, or whether they are excluded by Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act for being a system or method of operation.
Nautilus Inc v Biosig Instruments Inc, No 13-369, 572 US ____ (2014) - On the matter of interpreting the meaning of electrodes in a "spaced relationship with each other", the US Supreme Court held that a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention and remanded the case to the Federal Circuit.
Alice Corp v CLS Bank, No 13–298, 573 US ____ (2014) - The US Supreme Court rejected patent claims that “relate to a computerized scheme for mitigating ‘settlement risk’" for being drawn to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement. Merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics Inc, US SC No 12–398 (2013) - The US Supreme Court must determined that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring.