Can a prior art reference with an error be considered to be a disclosure of the erroneous teaching? A Federal Circuit panel split over this issue, with their disagreement largely based on how apparent the error would be to...more
In an order that is clearly less impactful and damaging than a number of opinions that the Supreme Court has disgorged in the last two weeks, the justices have denied certiorari in American Axle & Mfg. Inc. v. Neapco Holdings...more
7/1/2022
/ CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Denial of Certiorari ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 101 ,
Statutory Interpretation ,
USPTO
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office handles hundreds of thousands of patent applications per year, as well as various types of administrative patent proceedings. While the USPTO has made incremental improvements in its...more
Patent examiners have a hard job. They are given a relatively short amount of time in which they are supposed to thoroughly review a patent application, search for relevant prior art, and write a well-reasoned Office...more
This weekend The New York Times published an editorial opinion entitled "Save America's Patent System." It bemoans the purported prevalence of "bad patents" -- including "uninspiring tweaks" to existing products -- that...more
There is a theme running through many patent-eligibility disputes that is analogous to baiting-and-switching. One party has claims that recite an invention. The other party characterizes those claims at a high level or...more
Mentone sued Digi for alleged infringement of Mentone's U.S. Patent No. 6,952,413. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware found the claims of the patent to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Mentone...more
CosmoKey asserted U.S. Patent No. 9,246,903 against Duo in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement. The District Court found the patent's claims to be ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101...more
In academic settings, objective indicia of non-obviousness are sometimes presented as a common way of rebutting contentions that a claimed invention is obvious. These indicia, set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. and...more
Two years ago, MyMail and ooVoo went to the mat in the Federal Circuit over claims that the District Court for the Northern District of California found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Patent holder MyMail was able to...more
Diamond v. Diehr, decided by the Supreme Court in 1981, seemed to establish a bedrock principle of statutory construction for patent law. The Court stated that "[t]he 'novelty' of any element or steps in a process, or even...more
Sensormatic asserted U.S. Patents 7,730,534, 7,936,370, 7,954,129, 8,208,019, and 8,610,772 against Wyze in the District of Delaware, alleging infringement. Wyze moved the District Court to dismiss under Rule 12(c), on the...more
When the Supreme Court began poking around into the law of patent eligibility just over a decade ago, the invention topics that it considered under the abstract idea exception were limited to types of financial transactions. ...more
Today, the Supreme Court requested the views of the Solicitor General in its consideration of American Axle's certiorari petition, which asks the Court to reverse the Federal Circuit's decision in American Axle & Mfg. v....more
The Supreme Court's Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l case has been criticized for setting forth a patent eligibility analysis that is unworkably subjective. As a consequence, the validity of particular types of inventions,...more
The legal concept of obviousness is tricky. A claimed invention is found obvious if the prior art teaches or suggests all claim limitations and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the...more
There is an undercurrent in patent law these days that litigation favors the defendant. Rather than contending infringement of a few claims of one patent, plaintiffs are now advised to assert multiple claims across several...more
A computer does just three things: receives information in the form of bits, transforms this information, and provides output based on the information as transformed. The receiving may take place by way of various types of...more
Infinity Computer Products ("Infinity") sued Oki Data in the District of Delaware for infringement of four patents. The District Court found the patents invalid due to indefiniteness and the Federal Circuit affirmed. This...more
This decision is bad. Not an American Axle level of bad, but still quite far from good.
Simio sued FlexSim in the District of Utah for alleged infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 8,156,468. FlexSim moved for dismissal on...more
12/30/2020
/ Abstract Ideas ,
Computer-Related Inventions ,
Functionality ,
Inventive Concept Test ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Section 101 ,
Software Patents
Adaptive Streaming, the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,047,305, sued Netflix in the Central District of California for alleged infringement. Netflix moved to dismiss the case on the pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting that...more
One would think that inventions relating to computer game software would easily meet the requirements for patent eligibility, as these inventions fundamentally involve technological processes and require computer...more
The evolution of graphical user interfaces parallels the evolution of computing technology itself. As computers grow more powerful and sophisticated, so does their ability to display cutting-edge representations of...more
11/9/2020
/ Abstract Ideas ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Computer-Related Inventions ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inventive Concept Test ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Popular ,
Prior Art ,
Section 101 ,
Software Developers ,
Software Patents ,
USPTO
If we have learned anything from the last six-and-a-half years of patent eligibility jurisprudence, it is that nobody knows what's going on.
Subject matter eligibility is a fundamental requirement for an invention to be...more
11/2/2020
/ Abstract Ideas ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Examination Procedures ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inventive Concept Test ,
Patent Examinations ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Section 101 ,
USPTO
One of the more frustrating aspects of current patent-eligibility law is that it lends itself all too easily to mischief. In particular, given that the eligibility test under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as interpreted by the courts is...more