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
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
There is a theme running through many patent-eligibility disputes that is analogous to baiting-and-switching. One party has claims that recite an invention. The other party characterizes those claims at a high level or...more
A district court in the Eastern District of Texas granted a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss computer-implemented claims as patent-ineligible abstract ideas under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Patent is directed to credentialing...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
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
A district court in Mississippi recently granted a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss computer-implemented claims as patent-ineligible abstract ideas under 35 U.S.C § 101. The patent is directed to using a barcode to facilitate...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
In two recent decisions, judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit expounded on the standards under which software-related patent claims are subject matter eligible under 35 USC § 101. Ancora Techs. v. HTC...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
Patent eligibility challenges under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been effective tools for defendants to obtain early dismissal of a case without extensive fact finding since the Supreme Court ruling in Alice. Whether a claim recites...more
In 2003, for the first time in history, mankind sequenced an entire human genome. The endeavor – known as The Human Genome Project – took 13 years to complete....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
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
Visual Memory v. Nvidia reverses the grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), ruling that the claims recite an enhanced computer memory system and not an abstract idea under § 101. In Georgetown Rail v. Holland, the...more
Given the volume of district court decisions regarding Section 101, I typically don't find ones that stand out enough to warrant discussion. But last week's decision by Judge Stark in MAZ Encryption Technologies LLC v....more
Every day, millions of people are subjected to a frustrating experience -- finding a place to park their automobiles. Whether at the train station, the sports stadium, a festival, or a popular restaurant, circulating through...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