Introduction -
Packet Intelligence sued NetScout in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,665,725, 6,839,751, and 6,954,789. The District Court ruled that all three patents were valid...more
7/21/2020
/ Abstract Ideas ,
Appeals ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Computer-Related Inventions ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Judicial Exception ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Reversal ,
Section 101 ,
Section 102
Electronic Communication Technologies (ECT) sued ShoppersChoice in the Southern District of Florida for allegedly infringing claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 9,373,261. The claim recites...more
7/20/2020
/ Abstract Ideas ,
Appeals ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Judgment on the Pleadings ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Section 101 ,
USPTO
Uniloc, owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049, brought an action for infringement of that patent against LG in the Northern District of California. The District Court granted LG's motion to dismiss on the pleadings, agreeing...more
In 2014's Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l case, Justice Thomas famously wrote, "we need not labor to delimit the precise contours of the 'abstract ideas' category in this case." Instead, he found the claims of patentee Alice...more
3/3/2020
/ Abstract Ideas ,
Appeals ,
Bilski ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Covered Business Method Patents ,
Legal History ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 101 ,
USPTO
Berkheimer v. HP Inc. was decided by the Federal Circuit in February 2018 and stands for -- in the words of Judge Moore of that Court -- "the unremarkable proposition that whether a claim element or combination of elements...more
Koninklijke KPN N.V. (KPN) sued Gemalto M2M GmbH (Gemalto) and several other parties in the District of Delaware for infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 6,212,662. The defendants moved for dismissal under Rule 12(c),...more
June 23, 1880 -
WASHINGTON D.C. In a unanimous panel ruling, the Federal Circuit invalidated a patent owned by Salem, Massachusetts inventor A. G. Bell. On February 14, 1876, Mr. Bell was granted Letters Patent No....more
On July 23, 2019, the Federal Circuit denied ChargePoint's request for panel rehearing and en banc review of its March 28, 2019 decision rendering four ChargePoint patents invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Since we did not...more
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 (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
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 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
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
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
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 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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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