Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - Could Netflix Be Liable in "When They See Us" Defamation Case?
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Could Netflix Be Liable in "When They See Us" Defamation Case?
In Hantz Software, LLC, v. Sage Intacct, Inc.1, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the District Court for the Northern District of California to invalidate patents that are ineligible under...more
Since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2014 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International ruling, patentees attempting to enforce their patents in the software arts have encountered a more significant hurdle for patent eligibility that has...more
Chief Judge Lynn in the Northern District of Texas recently granted a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a complaint alleging patent infringement because the claim-at-issue recites patent-ineligible subject matter under 35...more
On March 15, 2022, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of Texas’s dismissal of a patent infringement complaint because the asserted patent claims were directed to process automation and therefore not eligible...more
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
While a district court in California remained “skeptical” of the patent eligibility of three computer-implemented patents, the court denied a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court found that claim...more
Our earlier Law360 guest article highlighted the rapid rise in prominence of the Waco Division of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas since U.S. District Judge Alan Albright was appointed to that court...more
On July 30, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, in APS Technology, Inc. v. Vertex Downhole, Inc. et al, No. 19-cv-01166, denied Vertex Downhole’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss APS’s patent...more
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s dismissal because the claims directed to an interactive video game for learning to play guitar were patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In its ruling, the court...more
Addressing the various factors a court may consider in order to determine whether a claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s dismissal of all claims...more
University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. v. General Electric Company, Appeal No. 2018-1284 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 26, 2019) - The Court this week affirmed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of an infringement lawsuit, finding...more
On May 3, 2018, Nike filed a lawsuit against Puma in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts accusing Puma of infringing seven of its utility patents related to footwear. In an earlier post on this blog, we...more
On October 29, 2018, United States District Judge P. Kevin Castel (S.D.N.Y.) issued a decision granting Defendant Bloomberg's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss iSentium's patent infringement claim because it is directed to...more
Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., Appeal No. 2017-1452 (Fed. Cir. May 31, 2018) and Berkheimer v. HP Inc., Appeal No. 2017-1437 (Fed. Cir. May 31, 2018) - In these two, published, precedential orders...more
In 2014, the United States Supreme Court in a landmark decision in the field of Patent Law (Alice Corp. v. CLS Int’l) invalidated software patents related to mitigating settlement risk. Relying on the now-infamous Section...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Moore, Reyna, and Taranto. Appeal from the District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Summary: Allegations in the complaint about how the claimed invention solved problems in...more
Two recent Federal Circuit decisions in the U.S., both penned by Judge Moore, significantly raise the bar for accused infringers seeking to invalidate patents on § 101 grounds before trial. Although one prior Federal Circuit...more
On November 20, 2017, a district court denied a defendant’s Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) motion that sought to dismiss the case on the ground that the asserted patents were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §...more
The Circuit affirms the decision in Secured Mail v. Universal to dismiss an infringement case under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that all of the asserted claims of the seven patents are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter....more
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware accepted Merck’s arguments that method of treatment patents asserted by BMS against its Keytruda product “touch[] upon a natural phenomenon” such that they should be...more
Plaintiff Peschke Map Technologies ("Peschke") sued Rouse Properties ("Rouse") for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,397,143, directed to a computer-based map navigation and display system. Rouse filed a 12(b)(6) motion to...more