Latest Posts › Abstract Ideas

Share:

The PTAB Goes to Europe: Four Recent Section 101 Decisions Designated as Informative

On July 1, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) designated four of its recent 35 U.S.C. § 101 decisions as informative.  Each of these decisions came down after and applied...more

USPTO Issues Updated Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance

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

Federal Circuit Denies En Banc Review of Berkheimer and Aatrix

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

Smart Systems Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Authority (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Three years ago, the Supreme Court's Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l case set forth a two-part test to determine whether claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. One must first decide...more

Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

When considering the patent-eligibility of claims, size usually matters. Claims that are longer and recite more detailed inventions tend to be more likely to survive 35 U.S.C. § 101 challenges than those that are shorter and...more

Digital Media Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (N.D. Fla. 2017)

When a district court judge states that "[o]ne could say this case is about a patent that claims too much and a legal test that provides too little," it is not hard to guess which way the case is going to go (the patent gets...more

Recognicorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Recognicorp, owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,005,303, sued Nintendo for infringement in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. After a transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and...more

Thales Visionix Inc. v. U.S. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Federal Circuit Finds Motion Tracking System to be Patent-Eligible - After the dark days of 2014 and 2015, in which exactly one Federal Circuit decision out of over twenty 35 U.S.C. § 101 challenges was found to meet the...more

USPTO Publishes Business Method Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Part II

As discussed in a previous article, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office recently published new subject matter eligibility examples directed to the abstract idea exception to patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101. These...more

USPTO Publishes Business Method Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Part I

About a week before the holidays, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office quietly published a trio of new subject matter eligibility examples directed to the abstract idea exception to patentability. These are the latest in a...more

Gust, Inc. v. Alphacap Ventures, LLC (S.D.N.Y. 2016); O2 Media, LLC v. Narrative Science Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2017)

The Supreme Court's 2014 Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l decision requires the application of a two-part test to determine whether claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter. One must first determine...more

Verint Systems Inc. v. Red Box Recorders Ltd. (S.D.N.Y. 2016)

Plaintiff Verint asserted six patents against Red Box (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,774,854, 5,790,798, 6,510,220, RE43,324, RE43,386, and 8,189,763) in the District Court for the Southern District of New York. Red Box rebutted,...more

Amdocs (Israel) Limited v. Openet Telecom, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Amdocs sued Openet in the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,631,065, 7,412,510, 6,947,984, and 6,836,797. Openet moved for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that all four...more

USPTO Issues Memorandum on Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decisions

On November 2nd, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published an update to its guidance regarding the examination of claims with respect to the patent-eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 (see Memorandum entitled...more

Iron Gate Security, Inc. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2016)

Iron Gate, holder of U.S. Patent No. 7,203,693, sued Lowe's in the Southern District of New York, alleging infringement. Lowe's moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), contending that the claims of the patent failed to meet...more

McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Patentee McRO sued a number of video game developers and publishers in the Central District of California and the District of Delaware for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,307,576 and 6,611,278. Several of the...more

Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2016)

Core Wireless Licensing brought an action against LG Electronics in the Eastern District of Texas. Core contended that LG infringed claim 21 of its U.S. Patent No. 7,804,850. LG moved for summary judgment on the grounds...more

Netsirv v. Boxbee, Inc. (PTAB 2016)

A post grant review (PGR) is an administrative reconsideration of a recent-granted U.S. patent. The proceeding is held in the USPTO, before that body's Patent Trial and Appeal Board. A petition for PGR is timely if it is...more

Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Patent owner Electric Power Group asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 7,233,843, 8,060,259, and 8,401,710 against Alstom S.A. and various other parties in the Central District of California. The District Court granted Alstom's motion...more

Shortridge v. Foundation Construction Payroll Service, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Douglas M. Shortridge, the named inventor of U.S. Patent No. 8,744,933, sued Foundation Construction Payroll Service, LLC ("Foundation") for infringement thereof in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of...more

Open Parking, LLC v. Parkme, Inc. (W.D. Penn. 2016)

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

USPTO Issues Memorandum Regarding Enfish and TLI

On the heels of the Federal Circuit handing down two subject matter eligibility decisions regarding software, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has published a memo to its examining corps regarding these cases. On May 12,...more

In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation (Fed. Cir. 2016)

This case is notable mainly because it is the first Federal Circuit decision to distinguish itself from Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., and also because it is another reminder that the wall between patentable subject matter,...more

Peschke Map Technologies LLC v. Rouse Properties Inc. (E.D. Va. 2016)

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

Patentable Subject Matter after Alice: Best Practices for Responding to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejections

It has been over 20 months since the Supreme Court handed down the landmark decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, effectively limiting the scope of patent-eligible subject matter. In particular, software and business...more

58 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 3

"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