News & Analysis as of

Inventive Concept Test Patent Infringement

Morrison & Foerster LLP

No More Bites at the Apple to Satisfy Section 101

Ginegar LLC sued Slack Technologies, Inc. for infringing its patents involving instant messaging systems. Judge William H. Orrick previously dismissed Ginegar’s claims for failure to satisfy Section 101 with leave to amend....more

Snell & Wilmer

Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal of “Process Automation” Patent Infringement Suit

Snell & Wilmer on

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

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Sensormatic Electronics, LLC v. Wyze Labs, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2021)

Sensormatic asserted U.S. Patents 7,730,534, 7,936,370, 7,954,129, 8,208,019, and 8,610,772 against Wyze in the District of Delaware, alleging infringement.  Wyze moved the District Court to dismiss under Rule 12(c), on the...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Targeted Advertising Still Patent Ineligible Subject Matter

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that targeted advertising is still an abstract idea and that a system providing targeted advertising must utilize something more than generic features and routine...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Products, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020)

This decision is bad.  Not an American Axle level of bad, but still quite far from good. Simio sued FlexSim in the District of Utah for alleged infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 8,156,468.  FlexSim moved for dismissal on...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

District Court Denied Rule 12(b)(6) Motion Based on Section 101 Because Additional Facts and Claim Construction Would Provide...

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

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

District Court Rules DNA Analysis Claims Reciting Mathematical Algorithms Ineligible Under § 101

The District Court for the Northern District of Ohio dismissed Cybergenetics Corp.’s infringement suit after determining that the asserted claims—which recite mathematical algorithms for analyzing data taken from a DNA...more

Knobbe Martens

Improvements to Operation of an Apparatus Were Not Abstract

Knobbe Martens on

XY, LLC v. TRANS OVA GENETICS, LC - Before Wallach, Plager, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Summary: Claims directed to improving a method of operating an apparatus...more

Knobbe Martens

Claims Directed at Longstanding Commercial Practices Do Not Pass Step One of the § 101 Test

Knobbe Martens on

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. SHOPPERSCHOICE.COM, LLC - Before Prost, Dyk, and Wallach. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Electronic Communication...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Hooke, Line and Sinker: Mechanical Patent Caught by § 101 Exception

McDermott Will & Emery on

In a divided panel decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that method claims for a mechanical invention were invalid under 35 USC § 10, and concluded that the claim was directed to a law of nature...more

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck

Federal Circuit Closes Door on Patentability in Chamberlain

In The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co., the Federal Circuit weighed in on the type of subject matter that can be characterized as an “abstract idea” and, thus, not eligible for patent protection....more

McDermott Will & Emery

Check Processing Claims Bounce

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found claims directed to using data from a check to credit a merchant’s account before scanning the check to be subject matter ineligible under 35 USC § 101 as reciting an...more

Holland & Knight LLP

D. Delaware Invalidates Patent Directed to Onsite Data Backup; Discusses Role of Evidence, USPTO and Preemption

Holland & Knight LLP on

The District of Delaware recently found a patent directed to onsite data backup to be abstract and ineligible for patent protection. The court's discussion went beyond the standard Alice inquiry, and touched on the roles of...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Specific Factual Allegations of Inventive Concept Defeat Motion to Dismiss

Addressing patent eligibility at the motion to dismiss stage of a case, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss, finding that the district court improperly...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Fresh From the Bench - August 2018 #2

PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-1242 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2018) In an appeal of an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit reviewed for the first time the...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Circuit Court Cases - June 2018

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

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Image Processing Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. (E.D. Tex. 2017)

Plaintiff Image Processing Technologies, LLC ("IPT") filed suit against Samsung in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division), alleging infringement of three patents, including U.S. Patent...more

Holland & Knight LLP

Patent Invalidation Paves the Way for Automated Fare Collection Systems

Holland & Knight LLP on

Next generation automated fare collection systems (AFC) typically characterized by open architecture designs, open payment approaches, and contactless card readers, are being installed in an increasing number of public...more

McDermott Will & Emery

“Inventive Concept” Requires Specific Use of Computer Components Beyond Their Generic Use

Addressing the “inventive concept” prong of a covered business method (CBM) patent review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted the CBM, finding that the challenged claims failed to recite an inventive concept...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2016) - Just When You Thought the Federal Circuit Was Softening...

Intellectual Ventures I LLC ("IV") sued Symantec Corp. and Trend Micro (defendants) for infringement of various claims of three U.S. Patents (Nos. 6,460,050; 6,073,142; and 5,987,610). The District Court held the asserted...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Tridim Innovations LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2016)

"Computer Display System" Patent Found Invalid under § 101 - Tridim Innovations LLC sued Amazon.com, Inc. for patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,838,326 and 5,847,709 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

E-Message Patents Survive Alice Challenge

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

Common computer technology has fallen victim to Alice in many recent cases. It is therefore noteworthy that the District of Massachusetts declined to invalidate e-mail management patents under §101 in Sophos v. RPost. ...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Amicus Briefs in Support of Sequenom's Petition for Rehearing En Banc: Professors Lefstin and Menell

Earlier this summer, in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the District Court for the Northern District of California granting summary judgment of invalidity of the asserted...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Federal Circuit Looks for Inventive Concept in Sequenom Patent

Foley & Lardner LLP on

On November 7, 2014, the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in Aria Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., where Sequenom is appealing the district court’s summary judgment of invalidity under 35 USC § 101. The active...more

24 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide