Note: This coverage of a district court case from last year provides an overview of the patented invention, as well as the decision currently being appealed to the Federal Circuit. In a subsequent article, we will review the...more
6/30/2015
/ America Invents Act ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Internet ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Section 101 ,
Ultramercial v Hulu ,
USPTO
Since late last year, the main theme of many 35 U.S.C. § 101 disputes has been whether claims under review are more like those in Ultramercial Inc. v. Hulu LLC or DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com. In the former case, the...more
1. Background -
In 2006, Akamai Technologies ("Akamai") sued Limelight Networks, Inc. ("Limelight") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,703. The...more
6/22/2015
/ Akamai Technologies ,
Direct Infringement ,
Indirect Infringement ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Internet ,
Limelight Networks ,
Limelight v Akamai ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Technology
The Ultramercial story is not over. In the latest step of a controversial case involving 35 U.S.C. § 101 that has been ongoing since 2009, patentee Ultramercial has petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The...more
6/4/2015
/ CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Copyright ,
Hulu ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Internet Streaming ,
Music ,
Online Videos ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Petition for Writ of Certiorari ,
Section 101 ,
Software ,
Technology ,
Ultramercial v Hulu ,
WildTangent v Ultramercial ,
YouTube
In August, 2009, Allvoice sued Microsoft in the Western District of Washington, alleging infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 5,799,273. In December, 2013, the District Court granted Microsoft's motion for summary judgment...more
Two months ago, in a long-awaited decision, the Federal Circuit invalided Ultramercial's U.S. Patent No. 7,346,545, directed to online video advertisements, as lacking patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Court...more
1/20/2015
/ Advertising ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
En Banc Review ,
Mayo v. Prometheus ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Petition for Review ,
SCOTUS ,
Ultramercial v Hulu ,
WildTangent v Ultramercial
Patentee Content Extraction and Transmission (CET) owns U.S. Patent Nos. 5,258,855 (the '855 patent), 5,369,508 (the '508 patent), 5,625,465 (the '465 patent), and 5,768,416 (the '416 patent). The '508, '465, and '416...more
The press has been all too eager to decry the so-called "broken" U.S. patent system and the alleged "scourge" of non-practicing entities (NPEs). However, few if any articles attempt to provide an even-handed analysis of...more
12/19/2014
/ CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Covered Business Method Patents ,
Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments ,
Non-Practicing Entities ,
Obviousness ,
Octane Fitness v. ICON ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Reform ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent Trolls ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Software
DDR Holdings ("DDR") sued Hotels.com and several other defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,993,572 and 7,818,399. DDR eventually...more
Ultramercial sued Hulu, YouTube, and WildTangent for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,346,545. Hulu and YouTube were eventually dismissed from the case. On a 12(b)(6) motion, and without construing the claims, the District...more
This case has a storied history. Ultramercial sued Hulu, YouTube, and WildTangent for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,346,545. Hulu and YouTube were eventually dismissed from the case. On a 12(b)(6) motion, the District...more
As the fallout of the Supreme Court's Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank decision propagates through the USPTO and lower courts, many patent applications and patents directed to business methods are being rejected or struck down for...more
In the weeks since the Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Supreme Court decision, we have been watching patents and applications fall left and right due to use of that case's more stringent test regarding patent-eligibility. This test...more
In This Issue:
- The Analysis for Design Patent Infringement Post-Egyptian Goddess
- Supreme Court Issues Decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
- Capitol Records, LLC v. Pandora Media, Inc.: Future of...more
8/27/2014
/ Capitol Records ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Copyright ,
Design Patent ,
Digital Media ,
Music Industry ,
Pandora ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
SCOTUS
There's an old saying that “bad facts make bad law,” acknowledging that a court's decisions regarding extreme cases can result in law poorly adapted to less extreme cases. The Supreme Court's recent trio of 35 U.S.C. § 101...more
Ever since the 2010 Supreme Court opinion in Bilski v. Kappos was handed down, the debate over the scope of patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been at times stimulating, complex, comical, and frustrating. Now it...more
On April 12, 2013, Segin Software sued Stewart Title and several other parties for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,165,939. The defendants filed a petition with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office requesting post-grant...more
Less than four weeks after the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, the Federal Circuit has used the holding of that case to strike down a patentee's claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101....more
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) wasted no time providing guidance to its examining corps regarding the recent Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. Just one week after the Justices...more
In the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, the Court affirmed the invalidity of Alice’s patents for computer implemented methods of reducing settlement risk. This case reached the...more
There's an old saying that "bad facts make bad law," acknowledging that a court's decision regarding an extreme case can result in law that poorly serves less extreme cases. The Supreme Court's recent trio of 35 U.S.C. § 101...more
6/20/2014
/ Akamai Technologies ,
Alice Corporation ,
CLS Bank ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Kappos ,
Limelight Networks ,
Mayo v. Prometheus ,
Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS
A very experienced patent attorney once told me that you should never write means-plus-function claims unless there is a Luger at your temple. This, the first opinion addressing indefiniteness to come from the Federal...more
On Monday, March 31, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the closely-watched Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l case. The question presented was "[w]hether claims to computer-implemented inventions -- including claims to...more
In a previous article, we discussed the background of this case, and provided an overview of the Petitioner Brief of patentee Alice Corp. In this article, we continue by covering the brief of the Respondent, CLS Bank....more
On December 6th, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to a case that presents the question of "[w]hether claims to computer-implemented inventions -- including claims to systems and machines, processes, and items of...more