Much of U.S. patent law jurisprudence still revolves around subject matter eligibility, but a new decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revisits the question of what constitutes obviousness in patent applications. The court remanded the case between Irvine, Calif.-based Axonics Inc. and Dublin-based Medtronic plc to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) after determining that the PTAB judge’s understanding of obviousness is “doubly infected by error” in a decision that seems to offer some much-needed clarity where obviousness is concerned.

Most of the decisions arising from the inter partes review (IPR) process used in the U.S. patent system are the final word on the related patent dispute, but Guardant Health Inc., managed to at least temporarily reverse such an outcome recently. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed an IPR determination that 16 claims found in a patent held by Guardant were obvious and kicked the case back to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for further consideration, but the affected patent is not clear of an adverse determination just yet.

Alivecor Inc. has nudged the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) into issuing a limited exclusion order for products by Apple Inc. that are said to violate patents held by Alivecor, but there is one more stage gate to go for Alivecor. The ITC order notes that the exclusion won’t go into force until resolution of an inter partes review (IPR) involving the two firms, a process that could devour as much as a year and a half before a resolution is available.

The effects of U.S. Supreme Court case law on patents are well demonstrated, but the latest victims of patent jurisprudence are directed toward a critical need for desperately ill patients. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that several claims found in three patents licensed to Caredx Inc., of Brisbane, Calif., are ineligible due to a purported lack of inventiveness under Section 101 of the Patent Act, an outcome that sustains what some believe is a trend in case law that is hostile toward diagnostic patents in the U.S.