Latest Publications

Share:

DSS Technology Management, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018)

Apple filed two petitions for inter partes review (IPR) against DSS's U.S. Patent No. 6,128,290. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office instituted the IPRs and issued final written...more

Berkheimer Files Response to HP's Petition for En Banc Review

In early February, the Federal Circuit published an opinion in HP Inc. v. Berkheimer stating clearly –- for the first time -- that patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should be determined as a matter of law, but with...more

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2018)

Intellectual Ventures (IV) sued Symantec in the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,537,533. The District Court invalidated the '533 patent on a summary judgment motion as being directed to...more

Whether Facts Matter in the Patent Eligibility Analysis: HP Files Petition for En Banc Rehearing

In Franz Kafka's novel The Trial, a man is accused of a non-specified crime by a shadowy governmental agency. The man repeatedly attempts to understand the nature of his alleged wrongdoing and his accusers. Ultimately, he...more

Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018)

Aatrix brought an infringement action against Green Shades in the Middle District of Florida, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,171,615 and 8,984,393. Green Shades filed a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the grounds...more

Berkheimer v. HP Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018)

This first five or so weeks of 2018 have been busy for Federal Circuit 35 U.S.C. § 101 jurisprudence. At last count, four substantive decisions have come down so far (including this one, but not including Rule 36 judgments...more

Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2018)

One of the more frustrating aspects of the current judicial patent eligibility framework is the propensity for courts, even the Federal Circuit, to carry out the two-part test from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l in a...more

Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018)

As patent-eligibility stands in 2018, it can be difficult to determine whether a graphical user interface (GUI) with an innovative layout and/or functionality meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. On one hand, a GUI is...more

Wordlogic Corp. v. Fleksy, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2017)

Wordlogic brought an action against Fleksy in the Northern District of Illinois, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,681,124 and 8,552,984. Flesky moved to dismiss the case under Rule 12(b)(6), on the grounds that...more

Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018)

The year's first substantive patent-eligibility decision from the Federal Circuit is a rare victory for the patentee. It is also further evidence that the outcome of an eligibility analysis may be more dependent upon how the...more

Mastermine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Mastermine brought a patent infringement action against Microsoft in the District of Minnesota. At issue were four claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,945,850 and three claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,429,518. After claim construction...more

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Intellectual Ventures I (IV) brought an action against Erie Indemnity Company in the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,757,298. Erie filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6),...more

Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Two-Way Media brought an action against Comcast in the District of Delaware, claiming infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,778,187, 5,983,005, 6,434,622, and 7,266,686. The District Court dismissed the case on the pleadings,...more

Smart Systems Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Authority (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Three years ago, the Supreme Court's Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l case set forth a two-part test to determine whether claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. One must first decide...more

Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

When considering the patent-eligibility of claims, size usually matters. Claims that are longer and recite more detailed inventions tend to be more likely to survive 35 U.S.C. § 101 challenges than those that are shorter and...more

Cloud9 Technologies LLC v. IPC Systems, Inc. (PTAB 2017)

Petitioner Cloud9 requested covered business method (CBM) review of IPC's U.S. Patent No. 8,189,566 before the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Due to the claims of the '566 patent not reciting a financial element, the...more

Securus Technologies, Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Over the last 18 months, the Federal Circuit has been quietly shoring up the non-obviousness provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 103 by enforcing the requirement that an obviousness argument entails making the full prima facie case. ...more

Digital Media Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (N.D. Fla. 2017)

When a district court judge states that "[o]ne could say this case is about a patent that claims too much and a legal test that provides too little," it is not hard to guess which way the case is going to go (the patent gets...more

Prism Technologies LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

An Obviousness Rejection in Patent-Eligibility Clothing? - In Mayo v. Prometheus, the Supreme Court wrote "[w]e recognize that, in evaluating the significance of additional steps, the § 101 patent-eligibility inquiry and,...more

Alternative Facts on Patent-Eligibility from the Electronic Frontier Foundation

The textbook policy rationale for the existence of a patent system is a quid-pro-quo -- a tradeoff in which an inventor is granted a time-limited property right over his or her invention in return for disclosing it to the...more

Recognicorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Recognicorp, owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,005,303, sued Nintendo for infringement in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. After a transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and...more

Thales Visionix Inc. v. U.S. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Federal Circuit Finds Motion Tracking System to be Patent-Eligible - After the dark days of 2014 and 2015, in which exactly one Federal Circuit decision out of over twenty 35 U.S.C. § 101 challenges was found to meet the...more

Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Apple filed a successful petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) of Personal Web Technologies' U.S. Patent No. 7,802,310. In its final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) agreed with Apple's contention...more

USPTO Publishes Business Method Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Part II

As discussed in a previous article, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office recently published new subject matter eligibility examples directed to the abstract idea exception to patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101. These...more

USPTO Publishes Business Method Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Part I

About a week before the holidays, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office quietly published a trio of new subject matter eligibility examples directed to the abstract idea exception to patentability. These are the latest in a...more

108 Results
/
View per page
Page: of 5

"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.