Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 09 NOVEMBER 2016

CAFC Affirmed PTAB's Decision On Obviousness Of Method Claims

Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Explore more from Seyfarth Shaw LLP

There are a number of statutory requirements for patentability of inventions. One of the requirements is that the invention is not obvious over the prior art to one of ordinary skill in the art.

United StatesIntellectual Property
King Wong
King Wong
Author LinkedIn connections

There are a number of statutory requirements for patentability of inventions. One of the requirements is that the invention is not obvious over the prior art to one of ordinary skill in the art. Whether a claimed invention would have been obvious over the prior art is one of the most common challenges made against patents. This post discusses a recent opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) concerning whether the method claims in a patent application were unpatentable due to obviousness. The case is In re: Efthymiopoulos, a decision rendered by CAFC on October 18, 2016.

The claims were directed toward methods for treating influenza infections. The representative claim is summarized below.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

UMG v. DistroKid: When AI Becomes A Consumer Protection Issue

Universal Music Group's lawsuit against DistroKid raises a critical question about AI disclosure in consumer markets: when does the use of artificial intelligence become material information that must be disclosed to consumers? The case centers on allegations that DistroKid distributed mass-generated AI music while creating the impression it was created by legitimate human artists, potentially violating existing consumer protection laws even without specific AI disclosure requirements.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Article

PTAB/USPTO Update - October 2026

The USPTO has released new templates and guidance for AIA trial proceedings, announced key appointments including a Chief AI Officer, and published updated procedures for patent applications and subject matter eligibility declarations. Director Squires delivered multiple addresses emphasizing the constitutional importance of intellectual property rights while the agency expanded its community engagement efforts and international collaboration through WIPO's Global IP Assignment Platform pilot program.
United StatesIntellectual Property
WilmerHale
WilmerHale
Article

The Trademark Scam Field Guide: Look-Alike Filing Sites, Fake USPTO Notices, And How To Get Out If You’ve Been Caught

A business decides to file a trademark. Someone on the team searches for a familiar online legal-services brand, clicks the first result, and lands on a site with a similar-sounding name, a polished design, five-star reviews, and a low flat fee. The application gets filed. Months later the business learns the “service” was not who they thought it was, the filing was signed by someone with no authority to sign it, and the USPTO has suspended the application along with hundreds or thousands of others from the same shop.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Harness IP
Harness IP
Article

Is This Real? Navigating AI Impersonation Under New And Existing Laws

Is this AI-generated, or is it real? As generative AI tools have become increasingly capable of creating realistic images, videos, and audio, they have also made it easier to impersonate real people without their consent. In response, states are increasingly adopting laws that impose civil and criminal liability for certain AI-generated content that replicates an individual’s identity, likeness, voice, or other personal attributes.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Wiley Rein
Wiley Rein
Article

A New Price Tag On OPT? DHS Proposes Unprecedented Fees For F-1 Practical Training

The Department of Homeland Security has proposed imposing fees of $70,000 for initial OPT recommendations and $30,000 for second-year extensions on educational institutions, potentially reshaping how international students, universities, and employers participate in the Optional Practical Training program. While framed as a fraud prevention measure, the proposal raises critical questions about workforce access, cost allocation...
United StatesImmigration
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Article

DHS Allows Salvadoran TPS Beneficiaries To Work And Remain, For Now

The Department of Homeland Security has confirmed that Salvadoran Temporary Protected Status beneficiaries remain protected despite the September 9, 2026 expiration date, though no formal announcement has been made regarding the program's future. This development raises critical questions about employer obligations and the potential scenarios that may unfold, including termination with a 60-day notice period or an extension of the designation.
United StatesImmigration
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Article

More Than A Download: Using USCIS’s E-Verify Records Disposal Deadline As A Compliance Checkup

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is permanently disposing of E-Verify records last updated before December 31, 2016, giving employers until January 8, 2027, to download critical compliance documentation. Companies must act now to preserve historical case data needed for audits, government investigations, and Form I-9 system transitions while ensuring their E-Verify account information remains current and accurate.
United StatesImmigration
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Article

California Just Expanded Regulation Of Workplace AI Beyond CCPA ADMT

California has enacted three new laws governing employer use of artificial intelligence and automated tools in layoffs, workplace monitoring, discipline, and termination. These laws are separate from the California Consumer Privacy Act’s automated decisionmaking technology (ADMT) rules and apply more broadly to employers and public entities that are not covered by the CCPA. CCPA covered employers may need to integrate compliance with ADMT and Risk Assessment requirements (for sensitive personal information processing activities and automated decisionmaking technology).
United StatesEmployment and HR
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Seyfarth Shaw LLP