As 2015 drew to a close, the toll of the Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l decision on software and business method patents became apparent. Post Alice, approximately 70% of all patents challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been...more
1/7/2016
/ CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Covered Business Method Patents ,
Exceptional Case ,
Octane Fitness v. ICON ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 101 ,
Software Patents ,
Totality of Circumstances Test
Many patent attorneys have a visceral, disapproving reaction to negative claim limitations -- elements that specify what a claim does not cover. While a line of Federal Circuit cases has established that negative limitations...more
In a previous article on the USPTO's publication of its 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, we wrote:
Despite the Interim Guidance offering a reasonably fair and thorough overview of the current...more
On July 30, 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office updated its subject matter eligibility guidance ("July Update"). In the July Update, the Office provided recommendations and resources for examiners in addition to those...more
11/6/2015
/ Abstract Ideas ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Examiners ,
Guidance Update ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Public Comment ,
SCOTUS ,
Software Patents ,
USPTO
On July 30, 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office updated its subject matter eligibility guidance ("July Update"). The update provided recommendations and resources for examiners in addition to those in the Office's...more
11/4/2015
/ Abstract Ideas ,
American Bar Association (ABA) ,
AMP v Myriad ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Guidance Update ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inventions ,
Mayo v. Prometheus ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Public Comment ,
SCOTUS ,
TRIPS Agreement ,
USPTO
USPTO SealAs the fallout from the Supreme Court's Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l case makes its way through the federal courts and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), applicants and patentees continue to struggle...more
On July 30, 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office updated its subject matter eligibility guidance ("Eligibility Update"). This update provides recommendations and resources for examiners in addition to those in the...more
8/26/2015
/ Abstract Ideas ,
Bilski ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Mayo v. Prometheus ,
New Guidance ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Preemption ,
SCOTUS ,
Ultramercial v Hulu ,
USPTO
The Federal Circuit issued a unanimous en banc decision yesterday regarding when joint tortfeasors may be held liable for literal infringement in Akamai Technologies Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. In its opinion, the court...more
The Federal Circuit handed down a unanimous en banc decision today regarding the interplay between literal infringement and induced infringement in Akamai Technologies Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. On remand from a...more
Section 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) established a transitional program through which the USPTO conducts post-grant reviews of covered business method (CBM) patents. For the most part, § 18 incorporates...more
7/16/2015
/ America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Claim Construction ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Covered Business Method Patents ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
SCOTUS ,
USPTO
On September 23, 2010, Eon filed suit against seventeen defendants in the District Court of the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,663,757. During the case, the '757 patent went through two...more
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
In its first substantive application of Alice v. CLS Bank in 2015, the Federal Circuit has once again shot down claims for not meeting the patent-eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In 2012, OIP sued Amazon in...more
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
On January 27, the USPTO provided its promised set of examples of patent-eligible and patent-ineligible claims relating to the abstract idea exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101, in light of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. These examples...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
On December 15, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published its 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility. This Interim Guidance was the long-anticipated update to the Procedure for...more
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