News & Analysis as of

Microsoft Patents

EDTX Interprets Federal Circuit Precedent Narrowly, Recommends Applying §315 Estoppel Broadly

by Jones Day on

In Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., Magistrate Judge Payne recommended that estoppel under §315(e) apply broadly against Microsoft in an upcoming patent infringement trial scheduled for early June 2017. No....more

Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (E.D. Tex. 2017)

Magistrate Recommends Narrow Interpretation of Inter Partes Review Estoppel Provision - Earlier this month, in Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., U.S. Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern...more

Magistrate Judge Recommends IPR Estoppel Bar of Prior Art References

by Knobbe Martens on

A magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Texas recommended in Biscotti, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:13-CV-01015, DI 191 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2017) that Microsoft should be estopped from asserting invalidity grounds that...more

District Court Precludes Defendant from Asserting Invalidity Grounds That It Raised or Could Have Reasonably Raised in IPR...

On May 11, 2017, Magistrate Judge Roy Payne in the Eastern District of Texas recommended that patentee Biscotti’s inter partes review (IPR) estoppel motion be granted–in-part and denied-in-part....more

Issue Four: PTAB Trial Tracker

by Goodwin on

Parallel District Court and PTAB Proceedings - In Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Meyer Prods. LLC, No. 3:14-cv0886-JDP (W.D. Wis. April 18, 2017), the district court for the Western District of Wisconsin drew a clear line...more

What’s behind Microsoft's latest IP protection offer?

by Morrison & Foerster LLP on

Microsoft Corp in February unveiled a new program that provides what it’s touting as “best-in-industry” protection against threats of intellectual property lawsuits. Under the Microsoft Azure IP Advantage program,...more

PTAB Applies Collateral Estoppel to Exclude Purported Patent Owner

by Knobbe Martens on

The PTAB issued an order applying collateral estoppel to determine that one purported owner of U.S. Patent 7,215,752 and U.S. Patent 7,844,041 (the “challenged patents”) had no authority to act as the patent owner in...more

Copyright Date Alone Does Not Prove Public Accessibility of Software User Guide

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the standard for establishing whether a prior art reference qualifies as a “printed publication,” the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of inter partes review (IPR), finding that the...more

The World in US Courts: Orrick's Quarterly Review of Decisions Applying US Law to Global Business and Cross-Border Activities

Alien Tort Statute (ATS)/Torture Victims Protection Act (TVPA)/Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) - District Court Dismisses ATS Claim Where Alleged Conduct in US Was Not Directly Linked to Injuries Claimed in Other Countries...more

Roadmap to Software Patent Eligibility

Recent Federal Circuit cases provide direction on how to satisfy the PTO or the federal courts that software is eligible for a patent. Some key points include: - New ways of organizing data - New connections between...more

Claims Are Construed In Digital Files Case

by Morris James LLP on

Andrews, J. Claim construction opinion issues regarding nine terms from one patent. A Markman hearing took place on May 6, 2016....more

Even After Enfish, Alice Still Casts a Shadow at the PTAB

When it comes to Enfish, the PTAB may have just indicated that it prefers to cut bait. In Informatica Corp. v. Protegrity Corp., CBM2015-0021 (May 31, 2016), the PTAB held that U.S. Patent No 6,321,201 was void under Alice...more

PTAB Relies on the Federal Circuit’s Recent § 101 Decision to Deny CBM Institution

On May 12, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued a decision on 101 patent eligibility that overturned a summary judgment finding of § 101 invalidity for software used for databases. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2015-1244,...more

A New Hope for Software Patents?

Software patents have been facing intense scrutiny under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for subject matter eligibility since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision in 2014. In the last two years, the patent ecosystem...more

Abstract Ideas and the USPTO: Examiner Guidance Post Enfish and TLI

by K&L Gates LLP on

On May 19, 2016, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a memorandum containing a summary of two recent Federal Circuit decisions along with a directive for how patent examiners should apply the holdings of the...more

USPTO Memo Updates Examiner Guidance On Subject Matter Eligibility In View Of Enfish

by Reed Smith on

On May 19, 2016, just weeks after its May 2016 memorandum to examiners providing guidance on subject matter eligibility under § 101, the USPTO issued a new memo updating its guidance to examiners in view of the Federal...more

How Federal Circuit Provides New Hope for Computer and Software-based Patents in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation

by Faegre Baker Daniels on

In just its second opinion upholding claims under Alice v. CLS Bank, the Federal Circuit has interpreted Alice in a manner that could save a “substantial class” of inventions from the strikingly-high invalidity rate under the...more

Federal Circuit Broadens Eligibility Requirements for Software Inventions

by Stinson Leonard Street on

Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Clarifies Which Patents are Not Direct to "Abstract Ideas" - Last week, in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 2016 WL 2756255 (Fed.Cir. 2016), a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the federal...more

Software Patents Aren’t Inherently Abstract—Patent Appeals Court Clarifies and Enhances Software Patent Eligibility

In Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a California district court’s summary judgment that two software patents were directed to an “abstract idea” without...more

Federal Circuit Finds Software Patent Not Abstract

by Ballard Spahr LLP on

Reversing a district court holding, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that two patents directed to a method for organizing data in a computer database did not claim an unpatentable...more

CAFC Finds Software Patent Eligible Under 35 U.S.C. §101

The Federal Circuit in Enfish LLC v. Microsoft reverses the California District Court decision that several patents related to a “self-referential” database were invalid as ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. Overview -...more

Major 101 Decision – Enfish v. Microsoft

by BakerHostetler on

Today in Enfish v. Microsoft, the Federal Circuit held software claims patent eligible, reversing the district court’s grant of summary judgment on 101. This is a major decision because it is only the second since Alice where...more

Judge Andrews permits Microsoft’s SEP-based antitrust claims against InterDigital to proceed (Microsoft v. InterDigital)

by Kelley Drye & Warren LLP on

On April 13th, Judge Andrews in the District of Delaware issued an Order that denied InterDigital’s motion to dismiss Microsoft’s Complaint that alleged violation of antitrust laws based on InterDigital’s enforcement of...more

The Internet of Things: Evaluating the Interplay of Interoperability, Industry Standards, and Related IP Licensing Approaches...

by Morrison & Foerster LLP on

We recently published a client alert on January 26, 2016 that addressed some of the more significant Internet of Things (“IoT”) -specific standards and initiatives and emphasized the importance of interoperability as central...more

Court Of Chancery Explains Jurisdiction

by Morris James LLP on

It is often assumed that merely by registering an entity in Delaware as part of a business transaction that you have become subject to the jurisdiction of the Delaware courts. But as this decision points out, that is not as...more

80 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 4
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.