A Digital Marketplace for Patents: Patents as NFTs
To rid the current patent recording system of its existing transparency and validity issues, patents should be digitized as NFTs and stored on a blockchain to create a trustworthy and extensive digital marketplace.
<em>Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC</em>
The Federal Circuit vacated the Patent Trials and Appeals Board’s decision on Netflix’s asserted prior art reference, holding Netflix did not need to use the “magic words” field of endeavor to identify one in their asserted prior art reference.
<em>Baxalta Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.</em>
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that Baxalta’s patent for antibodies that treat Hemophilia A was invalid for lack of enablement and applied the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi to reach its determination.
<em>Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc.</em>
In line with anticipation analysis for design patents, prior art may only be deemed “comparison prior art” if applied to the claimed article of manufacture. Future design patent infringement plaintiffs are now limited in their potential comparison art.
<em>Ikorongo Texas LLC v. Bumble Trading LLC</em>
The Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas decision and canceled Ikorongo Technology LLC’s patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 251(a), which requires that a reissue patent contain no new matter.
The Unified Patent Court Committees Have Hit the Ground Running
The European Union has recently taken steps to integrate the Unified Patent Court (UPC) into their judicial system by getting the first few committee meetings underway, appointing judges, and adopting human resource standards for the Court. These are small steps which will lead to big advancements for patent proprietors in Europe, making it easier to enforce patents across borders in the European Union.
<em>American National v. Sleep Number Corporation</em>
On November 14, 2022, the federal circuit court released a precedential opinion on an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court’s opinion affirmed and clarified the Board’s decision. The case hinged on multiple claims’ of patentability regarding Sleep Number’s mattress pressure programming and in what ways Sleep Number could amend their claims in anticipation of an inter partes review. The court held that the Board was correct in rejecting multiple unpatentability arguments from American National Manufacturing and further held that some Sleep Number claims were unpatentable.