The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently found unpatentable claims that are directed to a processor-based system for drilling a well that selects a desired path for the wellbore based on factors such as curvature,...more
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of patent claims directed to changing the position of components in an image to create the appearance of movement, i.e., animation. The court agreed that the...more
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of patent claims directed to a graphical user interface that seeks to enhance how search results are displayed to a user. The court agreed that the claims are...more
Judge Wu in the Central District of California recently granted dismissal of patent infringement claims directed to generating and sharing video content over a social network because they are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C....more
Senior Circuit Judge Bryson of the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation in the District of Delaware, recently granted-in-part and denied-in-part a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment based on patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C....more
10/27/2023
/ Abstract Ideas ,
Alice/Mayo ,
Claim Construction ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Section 101 ,
Software Patents
Judge Cronan in the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.) recently granted a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint because the patents-in-suit are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The...more
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 Wolson in the District of Delaware recently granted a motion for summary judgment of invalidity for patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patent is directed to cochlear implants. A single dependent...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
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Cameron Elliot recently found no violation of Section 337 in part because the claims recite patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patents are directed to polycrystalline...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
Judge Orrick in the Northern District of California recently granted a motion for summary judgment of invalidity for patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court found that the claims recited the abstract...more
Allegations of indirect patent infringement require, among other things, pleading that the defendant had knowledge of the asserted patent. It is not well-settled law, however, whether notice of a complaint itself satisfies...more
A district court in the Eastern District of Texas 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 credentialing...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
In an August 18 memorandum, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued binding agency guidance on the proper role of “applicant admitted prior art” (AAPA) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The memorandum...more
A recent initial determination at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) determined that claims directed to semiconductor chips with no lower bounds for recited gate pitch and width ranges (e.g., “less than or equal to...more
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 a recent decision, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s summary judgment of non-enablement because the systems identified by patent challengers as non-enabled under § 112 were not covered by the claims. Because...more
6/8/2020
/ Abstract Ideas ,
Computer-Related Inventions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
Section 101 ,
Section 112 ,
Statutory Requirements ,
Vacated
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently designated an order, Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR 2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020), as precedential. The order outlines six non-dispositive factors the PTAB will...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) recently designated two decisions as precedential and one decision as informative, marking its first precedential and informative designations for 2020. In two of the...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
The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) decision declining to analyze patent claims as anticipated or obvious in an inter partes review (IPR) where the Board found the...more
2/14/2020
/ Indefiniteness ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Means-Plus-Function ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
Section 102 ,
Section 103 ,
Section 112
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that a merger clause in a patent license settlement agreement did not extinguish a prior covenant not to sue on the same patent because the agreement did not...more
2/3/2020
/ Contract Interpretation ,
Covenant Not to Sue ,
Exclusive Licenses ,
License Agreements ,
Merger Agreements ,
Merger Clause ,
Mergers ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Settlement Agreements