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
Last month the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published an update ("October Update") to its subject matter eligibility guidance. As we noted at that time, the October Update is more evolutionary than revolutionary, and...more
August 27, 1890 -
WASHINGTON D.C. The ups and downs of Mr. Thomas A. Edison's inventions related to electrical lighting continue. After his U.S. Patent No. 223,898 for an "Electric Lamp" was found to be valid in the...more
Early today, October 17, 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office released an update to its January 2019 Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Unlike the January Guidance, which represented a significant change in how the...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
Another week and another technology patent falls to a patentable subject matter challenge under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l. In this case, the patentee may have effectively shot itself in the foot with its own statements...more
MyMail is the holder of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,275,863 and 9,021,070, both directed to "methods of modifying toolbars that are displayed on Internet-connected devices such as personal computers." MyMail initially asserted these...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
On July 1, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) designated four of its recent 35 U.S.C. § 101 decisions as informative. Each of these decisions came down after and applied...more
Cellspin Soft Inc. (Cellspin) filed an infringement suit against Fitbit Inc. (Fitbit) and ten other defendants in the Northern District of California, asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 8,738,794, 8,892,752, 9,258,698, and...more
As we have previously covered, the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property recently held hearings on proposed revisions to 35 U.S.C. § 101 and related sections of the patent statute. Chairman Thom Tillis (a Republican...more
On June 11, 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office held a public presentation -- a patent quality chat -- regarding the interpretation of computer-implemented claims using functional language under 35 U.S.C. § 112. ...more
On June 4, 5, and 11, the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property held hearings on its recent proposal to revise 35 U.S.C. § 101, and in particular the current draft bill to do so. Chairman Tillis and Ranking Member...more
On May 22, a bipartisan and bicameral group of senators and representatives released a draft bill that proposes significant changes to 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the law of patent eligibility. This draft bill follows a framework...more
In October 2017, Hyper Search brought a patent infringement action against Facebook in the District of Delaware, asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 6,085,219, 6,271,840, and 6,792,412. Facebook sought to dismiss the complaint under...more
On January 7, 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published updated examination guidance, instructing the examining corps and the PTAB how they should apply 35 U.S.C. § 101. On the same day, the USPTO also published...more
On January 7, 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published updated examination guidance, instructing the examining corps and the PTAB how they should apply 35 U.S.C. § 101. On the same day, the USPTO also published...more
On January 7, 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published updated examination guidance, instructing the examining corps and the PTAB how they should apply 35 U.S.C. § 101. On the same day, the USPTO also published...more
On January 7, 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published updated examination guidance, instructing the examining corps and the PTAB how they should apply 35 U.S.C. § 101. On the same day, the USPTO also published...more
On January 4, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published updated examination guidance regarding the subject matter eligibility of inventions involving abstract ideas. The guidance went into effect on January 7, upon its...more
One final 35 U.S.C. § 101 case inched across the finish line at the end of 2018. And while this one is not particular remarkable substantively, its concurrence from a particularly opinionated judge may give it an unwelcome...more
Opening scene . . . our intrepid patent attorney arrives early at her office for a productive day at work. With morning coffee sitting next to her monitor, she opens her email. She finds a few messages from clients and...more
We wrote about this case six months ago, regarding InvestPic's appeal to the Federal Circuit over having its patent invalided under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the Northern District of Texas. InvestPic did not get the outcome it was...more
It seems like everyone is talking about artificial intelligence, especially the subset thereof referred to as machine learning. While some of the discussion is cast in terms of politically-stirred angst about human jobs...more