News & Analysis as of

Covered Business Method Patents

Securus Technologies, Inc. vs. Global Tel*Link Corp. (PTAB 2017)

Telecommunication Call Processing System Held to Be Eligible for Covered Business Method (CBM) Patent Review - On August 3, 2017, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision...more

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

Today the Circuit agreed to hear en banc Nantkwest v. Matal,in which the panel had reversed a district court decision that had rejected the PTO’s position that applicants who appeal a district court must pay the PTO’s legal...more

Preventing Identity Theft—A Tale as Old as Time According to Judge Palermo When She Invalidated Patent Claims for Identity Theft...

by Orrick - IP Landscape on

Order Granting Summary Judgment in favor of Defendants, Mantissa Corp. v Ondot Systems, Inc., et al, S.D. Tex. (August 10, 2017) (Magistrate Judge Dena Palermo) - Litigants continue to use Alice and its progeny as a...more

Interplay Between “Technological Invention” and “Significantly More” in PTAB CBM Review

by Knobbe Martens on

On July 18, 2017, the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) instituted a covered business method (“CBM”) patent review for U.S. Patent No. 8,955,029 (“the ’029 patent”) on grounds of...more

A Court Divided: Judges File Widely Varying Opinions on CBM Review Eligibility

by McDermott Will & Emery on

The standards used by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for determining what qualifies as a covered business method (CBM) patent under AIA § 18(d)(1) and 37 CFR 42.301(a) have not always been consistent (see, for...more

[Webinar] Keeping Up With the PTAB: How to Win When the Rules Seem to Change - July 26th, 12:00pm CT

by Brinks Gilson & Lione on

On Wednesday, July 26, 2017, at 12:00pm CT, Danielle Phillip, Allyn Elliott, and Peter Lee, attorneys with the Post-Grant Patent practice group, will present the webinar, "Keeping Up With the PTAB: How to Win When the Rules...more

Patent Holders Can Evade CBM by Disclaiming CBM Claims

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing petitioner’s urging that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) import the district court “time of filing” rule to institution decisions for covered business method (CBM) reviews, the PTAB once again held that...more

Intellectual Property Newsletter - June 2017

by Shearman & Sterling LLP on

Shearman & Sterling’s IP litigation team has published its quarterly newsletter. The newsletter covers a wide range of current IP topics: the Supreme Court’s TC Heartland patent-venue decision, the constitutionality of inter...more

Patents or Trade Secrets? Yes, Please.

by Hogan Lovells on

Most energy companies implement Intellectual Property (“IP”) strategies to protect and exploit company IP (offense) and navigate third-party rights (defense). Traditionally, these policies emphasize patents. But today’s...more

Life, Liberty, and…IPRs? SCOTUS to Weigh in on Constitutionality of Inter Partes Review Proceedings

by Bryan Cave on

Today, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group, No. 16-712 (June 12, 2017), to decide whether post-grant proceedings created under the America Invents Act (“AIA”) are...more

Supreme Court to consider constitutionality of inter partes reviews

by Dentons on

After rejecting three prior requests, the Supreme Court has now granted certiorari to decide whether inter partes review (IPR) is constitutional. In its petition filed November 23, 2016, Oil States Energy Services, LLC, asked...more

Estoppel in CBMR is Both Reviewable and Determined on a Claim by Claim Basis

In Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, [2016-2001](June 9, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB decision that Westlake was not estopped to bring a Covered Business Method Review challenge to U.S. Patent No....more

Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Claims Directed to Providing Financing for Allowing a Customer to Purchase a Car found Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 - In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed a final written decision of the Patent Trial...more

Patents 101: The Different Types of Patents

by Revision Legal on

Any business entity or inventor that is considering securing patent rights for a novel and non-obvious invention needs to know a little bit about the different types of patents that are available from the United States Patent...more

Recent Developments In Patent Law May 17, 2017

Update to TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, Case No. 16-341 (May 22, 2017) - In an 8-0 opinion written by Justice Thomas (Justice Gorsuch did not participate), the Supreme Court rules that a defendant...more

Surviving Alice in the e-Commerce Arts

by Fenwick & West LLP on

As has been well documented, the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank has had a dramatic impact on the allowability of computer implemented inventions. This second article in our series explores the dynamics...more

April 1, 2017 Revision of Chinese Patent Examination Guidelines may be Good News for Patentees

With continued extraordinary growth, including a record number of patent applications filed in a single year[1], the importance of intellectual property rights in China is undeniable. And so, all eyes are on the recent...more

Bar for CBM Review Inching Higher

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the standard for initiating a covered business method (CBM) review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute CBM review given the generic, broad nature of the claims and specification. Ford...more

Federal Circuit Denies SHzoom's Bid to Make Trading Technologies Decision Precedential, But the Case is Still Good Law

by Fenwick & West LLP on

On Wednesday, the Federal Circuit, in a per curiam order, denied SHzoom's motion to make the Trading Technologies opinion precedential. The order of course gave no reasons for the decision. Nonetheless, the underlying...more

Mixed Results: Federal Circuit’s Intervening § 101 Determination Faces PTAB Dissent

by McDermott Will & Emery on

After the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed the very same issue and patent, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reached a split decision, finding the claims to be patent eligible under § 101 despite...more

Petitions Seeking CBM Review Continue Uphill Battle After Unwired Planet

by McDermott Will & Emery on

In a series of cases addressing the standard for initiating a covered business method (CBM) review, both the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reached the same...more

Federal Circuit Review | March 2017

by Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Remands IPR Final Decision For Inadequate Obviousness Analysis, Sidesteps Issue of Proper Claim Construction Standard - In Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1174, the Federal...more

Generic Claim Terms and Broad Specification Led to No CBM Review

by Finnegan – AIA Blog on

In Twilio, Inc. v. Telesign Corp., CBM2016-00099, Paper 13 (Feb. 27, 2017), the Board refused to institute a covered business method (CBM) review because the Petitioner failed to show that the patent at issue qualified to be...more

Twilio, Inc. v. Telesign Corp. (PTAB 2017)

No CBM Review for On-Line Registration Patent Having Financial Applications and Uses - Twilio Inc. filed a Petition requesting covered business method patent review of claims 1–18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,300,792. The Board...more

U.S. Patent Office Provides Additional Examples of Eligible Subject Matter

by Knobbe Martens on

After the Supreme Court case of Alice v. CLS Bank in 2014, the Patent Office has issued a series of examination guidelines and examples to guide examiners and patent practitioners in determining patent eligible subject...more

323 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 13
Cybersecurity

"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 using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*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.