Judge Engelmayer in the Southern District of New York recently granted a motion to dismiss the complaint because the patent-in-suit is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patent is directed...more
Judge Orrick in the Northern District of California recently granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings that the asserted claims are invalid for claiming patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The...more
Chief Judge Lynn in the Northern District of Texas recently granted a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a complaint alleging patent infringement because the claim-at-issue recites patent-ineligible subject matter under 35...more
While a district court in California remained “skeptical” of the patent eligibility of three computer-implemented patents, the court denied a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court found that claim...more
11/12/2020
/ Abstract Ideas ,
Claim Construction ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Federal Rule 12(b)(6) ,
Inventive Concept Test ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Question of Fact ,
Section 101
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s dismissal because the claims directed to an interactive video game for learning to play guitar were patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In its ruling, the court...more
6/18/2020
/ Abstract Ideas ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Computer-Related Inventions ,
Federal Rule 12(b)(6) ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Section 101 ,
Video Games
A district court in Mississippi recently granted a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss computer-implemented claims as patent-ineligible abstract ideas under 35 U.S.C § 101. The patent is directed to using a barcode to facilitate...more
In deciding patent eligibility of computer-implemented claims, courts consider whether the claims merely implement a generic computer or whether they improve the functioning of the computer itself. The Federal Circuit...more
A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia granted defendant Amazon.com, Inc.’s motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, ordering plaintiff Innovation Sciences, LLC to pay over $700,000 in fees that accrued...more
A Central District of California judge has clarified his prior ruling on summary judgment that estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) that applies to certain obviousness invalidity grounds raised by Defendants. In the prior...more