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
Ancora sued HTC in the Western District of Washington alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941. HTC moved to dismiss the case, contending that the claims of the patent were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The...more
Data Engine Technologies (DET) filed an infringement suit against Google in the District of Delaware contending infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,590,259, 5,784,545, 6,282,551, and 5,303,146. Google responded with a Rule...more
Almost two years ago, we covered a dispute in the Southern District of New York (which began in the Eastern District of Texas) involving plaintiff AlphaCap, a non-practicing entity that aggressively asserted its patents...more
Machine learning is more than just a buzzword. It represents a fundamental shift in how problems are solved across industries and lines of business. In the near future, a machine learning library may become a standard part...more
Earlier this month, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) changed a number of decisions to "informative" status. An informative decision reflects "the Board's general...more
Interval Licensing brought an action against AOL and several other defendants in the Western District of Washington, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,034,652. In a previous ruling, all asserted claims of this...more
Background -
Cellspin sued Fitbit and thirteen other defendants in the Northern District of California alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,738,794, 8,892,752, 9,749,847, and 9,258,698. The defendants filed a...more
Most software inventions are functional in nature. The focus is not on what the invention is so much as what it does. The same physical hardware can be programmed by way of software to carry out an infinite number of...more
One of the more substantive questions in the recent interpretation of what encompasses patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is whether facts should play any role in the analysis. The Supreme Court has not been...more
SAP America, Inc. (SAP) filed a declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of Texas, alleging that U.S. Patent No. 6,349,291 of InvestPic, LLC (InvestPic) was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The District Court...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Broad (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has often been criticized for being particularly harsh when reviewing appeals of claims rejected by an examiner of grounds of patent-ineligibly...more
The second part of the patent-eligibility test of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l involves an inquiry into whether certain elements of a claim directed to an unpatentable judicial exception are "well-understood, routine, and...more
Apple filed two petitions for inter partes review (IPR) against DSS's U.S. Patent No. 6,128,290. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office instituted the IPRs and issued final written...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