Latest Posts › Patents

Share:

Raytheon Technologies Corp. v. General Electric Co. (Fed. Cir. 2021)

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

VLSI Technology, LLC v. Intel Corp. (W.D. Texas 2021)

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

On the Patent Eligibility of Information Processing

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, Inc. v. Oki Data Americas, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2021)

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

Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Products, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020)

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

Adaptive Streaming Inc. v. Netflix, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020)

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

Gree, Inc. v. Supercell Oy (Fed. Cir. 2020)

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

C R Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020)

One of the more intellectually dishonest aspects of current patent eligibility law is that it allows one to ignore certain claim elements when evaluating claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  In Mayo v. Prometheus, it was stated...more

On the Patent Eligibility of Graphical User Interfaces: Part II

This article is Part II of a study on the patent eligibility of graphical user interfaces.  Part I was published yesterday.  We continue from where we left off, with overviews of a handful of Federal Circuit § 101 decisions...more

On the Patent Eligibility of Graphical User Interfaces: Part I

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

Stupid § 101 Tricks

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

Realtime Data LLC v. Reduxio Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020)

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

USPTO Publishes Report on AI-Related Policies

Last year, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a request for comments (RFC) on patenting artificial intelligence (AI) based inventions.  Topics of the RFC included AI's impact on inventorship and ownership,...more

The Three Properties of Patent-Eligibility: An Empirical Study

Patent eligibility is a bit of a mess these days.  Ever since the Supreme Court handed down the Alice v. CLS Bank decision six years ago, the distinction between what might be subject matter that can be patented and what is...more

Federal Circuit Rules Public Key Cryptography Algorithm Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

Note:  The below is a sarcastic parody, in the spirit of our earlier sarcastic parodies. WASHINGTON D.C., June 23, 1984.  In a unanimous decision, the Federal Circuit has ruled U.S. Patent No. 4,405,829 invalid under 35...more

Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020)

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

Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2020)

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

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020)

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

USPTO Assesses the Impact of Patent Eligibility's Changing Landscape

In a post-truth world, it is more tempting than ever to evaluate data based on gut instinct, intuition, and anecdotal evidence.  It is thus refreshing when results of a robust statistical analysis are published, even if the...more

What is an Abstract Idea, Anyway?

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

The Zombie Apocalypse of Patent Eligibility Reform and a Possible Escape Route

The hopes of anyone in favor of patent reform targeting 35 U.S.C § 101 have been official dashed -- or at least put on hold.  In an interview with the Intellectual Property Owner's association (IPO) last week, Senator Thom...more

iLife Technologies, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. (N.D. Tex. 2020)

With the eligibility rubric of Alice v. CLS Bank, an applicant/patentee must navigate a minefield of pre-issuance and post-issuance validity challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in order to obtain and enforce a patent....more

USPTO Makes Ex Parte Linden An Informative PTAB Decision

Over five and a half years on from the Supreme Court's Alice vs. CLS Bank ruling, patentees, patent professionals, judges, and USPTO personnel are still wrestling with what it means for an invention to be eligible for...more

MBHB Snippets: A review of developments in Intellectual Property Law - Volume 17, Issue 3

2019 Patent Trial and Appeal Board Key Practice Updates: A Year in Review - 2019 has been an active year for procedural changes in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). These changes include not only the PTAB’s...more

Artificial Intelligence-based Patents: Perspectives for Practitioners and Patent Owners

Innovations involving artificial intelligence (AI) and machine-learning (ML) are being developed at an ever-accelerating pace. For example, as illustrated in Figure 1, the number of patent applications published by the United...more

211 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 9

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide