No. 22-604

Garth Janke v. Kathi Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office

Lower Court: Federal Circuit
Docketed: 2022-12-30
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: 3d-printing gottschalk-v-benson mathematical-model parker-v-flook patent-eligibility patent-law patent-monopoly product-preemption
Key Terms:
Antitrust Patent Trademark
Latest Conference: 2023-02-17
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Can a known patentable product become ineligible for patenting when it is claimed to be made by applying a mathematical model of the product on a 3D printer?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Can a known patentable product become ineligible for patenting when it is claimed to be made by applying a mathematical model of the product on a 3D printer, as no one is disputing follows from Parker v. Flook? And, can it be too much patent “monopoly” to preempt (in practical effect) a mathematical model of a product, as no one is disputing follows from Gottschalk v. Benson, when it is known that it is not too much patent monopoly to pre-empt the real product itself? 1 The Court’s term for the exclusive rights associated with a patent. See, e.g., Alice v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. at 216. ii RELATED CASES | Ex parte Garth Janke, No. 2021-005284, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Decision entered November } 18, 2021. | In re: Garth Janke, No. 2022-1274, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judgment entered October 6, 2022. . | | | | | ‘ | | | | | | |

Docket Entries

2023-02-21
Petition DENIED.
2023-02-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/17/2023.
2023-01-27
Waiver of right of respondent Vidal, Kathi to respond filed.
2022-12-28

Attorneys

Garth Janke
Garth Janke — Petitioner
Garth Janke — Petitioner
Vidal, Kathi
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent