Patentable Signals at the Supreme Court: In Nuijten, the CAFC held that transitory propagating signals are not patentable subject matter because they do not fit within any of the four statutory invention categories of “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” Now, Nuijten has petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari in a case captioned Nuijten v. Dudas. The petition focuses on the CAFC’s decision that arguably requires patentable inventions be (1) tangible; (2) non-transitory; and (3) measurable without “special equipment.” [Petition][About Nuijten]
Design Patents at the Supreme Court: In Calmar v. Arminak, the design patent holder is asking the Supreme Court to reverse the Federal Circuit’s narrow infringement analysis. ISDAhas filed an amicus brief arguing that the CAFC’s application of the “ordinary observer” test improperly excludes the most natural ordinary observer – a retail customer. [Brief][About Calmer]
These two pending Supreme Court petitions are both important and well argued. The fact that they are well presented also makes it more likely that the follow–on cases of Bilski and Egyptian Goddess will receive attention from the Supreme Court.