Covered Business Method Patents

News & Analysis as of

Connect the Dots: Petition That Fails to Explain How Prior Art Could Be Combined Can Doom a PTAB Proceeding

While claim charts are often used to compare prior art to challenged patent claims, simply submitting those claim charts as part of a petition to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), without more, could lose your case....more

That’s Patentable? The Far-Reaching Definition of an “Invention”

U.S. patent law provides that “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor,” 35 U.S. Code...more

Why Business Methods Are Difficult to Patent

Although the general rule (based on 35 USC section 101) is that anything made by humans is patentable, there are exceptions. Laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Inventions that fall in...more

Internet-Centric Solution Is More than Moving Online - eBay, Inc. v. PAID, Inc.

Addressing the issue of patent-eligible subject matter in a covered business method (CBM) review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) found the challenged online action patent to be directed to ineligible...more

No Review of PTAB Determination to Not Institute an IPR, Again - Achates Reference Publishing, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Addressing a decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) to not institute inter partes review IPR proceedings, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded...more

[Webinar] Software Patent Eligibility - A Post-Alice Landscape Discussion - Nov. 10th, 10:00am PST

Join our panel of Knobbe Martens partners for this complimentary and informative webinar to discuss the state of software patent eligibility after Alice Corp v. CLS Bank International. Since the Supreme Court's...more

Is Inter Partes Review Set for Supreme Court Review?

In re Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC presented the Federal Circuit with its first opportunity to address important, open questions about how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) handles its relatively new Inter Partes Review...more

MoFo IP Newsletter - October 2015

The Survey Says: Tiffany Is Not Generic for A Ring Setting - Last month, the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to Tiffany & Co. on its trademark infringement claim against Costco Wholesale...more

Progressive Obtains No Insurance at Federal Circuit - Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

In a non-precedential decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed several formal written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) invalidating the appellant’s patents, while also...more

Federal Circuit Review | September 2015

Federal Circuit Remands Record Damages Award For New Trial On Extraterritorial Sales - In Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd., Appeal No. 2014-1492, the Federal Circuit reversed a damages award...more

IP Newsflash - September 2015

DISTRICT COURT CASES - Minnesota Court Awards Octane Fitness $1.7 Million in Attorney Fees and Costs - In the seminal case establishing a lower standard for attorney fees in “exceptional” patent cases—Octane Fitness...more

Section 325(d) Does Not Preclude All Second Petitions - Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC

Addressing its decision to institute a covered business method (CBM) patent review based on a second petition, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) found that its decision...more

PTAB Prevails in First Appeal of a CBM Review - Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc.

In the first appeal of a covered business method (CBM) review, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB or Board) decision, and explained that the eligibility of a...more

Additional protection from Swiss-form claims: a direct infringement option when method claims are indirectly infringed

An unresolved question in Australia is whether Swiss form claims add to the scope of protection afforded by corresponding method of medical treatment claims. It is settled that both may co-exist in a granted patent, but is...more

Courts Everywhere are Finding Software Patents Invalid, So What Next?

For the last few decades, corporations ranging from startups to large multinationals first turned to utility patents to protect their innovative software. These patents protected everything from the minute details of...more

USPTO Introduces Second Wave of PTAB Rule Changes

On August 20, 2015, the US Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued a Proposed Rule containing amendments to the Rules of Practice governing proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). This proposed...more

#AliceStorm: The Summertime Blues Continue

In my July post, I noted that Section 101 court decisions were issuing fast and furious, with twelve decisions in just the first ten days. I predicted that "At this pace, we could see some twenty to thirty decisions this...more

Litigation Alert: Federal Circuit Expands Liability for Divided Patent Infringement

On August 13, 2015, the Federal Circuit in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. changed the law regarding liability for direct infringement of a method patent involving more than one actor (divided...more

USPTO Proposes New Rules For PTAB Trial Proceedings

Practice Points: USPTO responds to public comments on PTAB trial procedures, publishes several proposed rule changes for 60 day comment period....more

Federal Circuit Limits “Divided Infringement” Defense – Precise Contours Of Direct Infringement Remain Uncertain

Practice Points - Federal Circuit finds Limelight liable for direct infringement even though Limelight’s customers performed certain steps of Akamai’s patented process. - Defendants may be liable as direct...more

Federal Circuit Expands Scope of Liability for Divided Infringement

The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., this week adopted a new standard governing divided infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). The new standard is likely to enhance...more

Is the gaping hole closing?

Last week, the Federal Circuit in Akamai Technologies Inc. et al. v. Limelight Networks Inc., No. 09-1372 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2015), overruled prior decisions to the extent they indicate that direct infringement of method...more

Federal Circuit Defines Joint Tortfeasor Infringement Liability in Akamai v. Limelight

The Federal Circuit issued a unanimous en banc decision yesterday regarding when joint tortfeasors may be held liable for literal infringement in Akamai Technologies Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. In its opinion, the court...more

In “Limelight”, Unanimous Federal Circuit Outlines Framework for Direct Infringement of Method Claims

In a unanimous full court decision issued last week, the Federal Circuit availed itself of “the opportunity to revisit the § 271(a) question” left unanswered by the Supreme Court last year, and outlined “the governing legal...more

Federal Circuit Panel Expands Reach of §271(a) Liability for Divided Infringement

On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, a unanimous en banc Federal Circuit panel in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Network, Inc., Nos. 2009-1372, -1380, -1416, -1417 (August 13, 2015) this week revised its standard...more

210 Results
View per page
Page: of 9

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.