When the Supreme Court began poking around into the law of patent eligibility just over a decade ago, the invention topics that it considered under the abstract idea exception were limited to types of financial transactions. ...more
Note: The below is a sarcastic parody, in the spirit of our earlier sarcastic parodies.
WASHINGTON D.C., June 23, 1984. In a unanimous decision, the Federal Circuit has ruled U.S. Patent No. 4,405,829 invalid under 35...more
Introduction -
Packet Intelligence sued NetScout in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,665,725, 6,839,751, and 6,954,789. The District Court ruled that all three patents were valid...more
7/21/2020
/ Abstract Ideas ,
Appeals ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Computer-Related Inventions ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Judicial Exception ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Reversal ,
Section 101 ,
Section 102
Electronic Communication Technologies (ECT) sued ShoppersChoice in the Southern District of Florida for allegedly infringing claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 9,373,261. The claim recites...more
7/20/2020
/ Abstract Ideas ,
Appeals ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Judgment on the Pleadings ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Section 101 ,
USPTO
Koninklijke KPN N.V. (KPN) sued Gemalto M2M GmbH (Gemalto) and several other parties in the District of Delaware for infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 6,212,662. The defendants moved for dismissal under Rule 12(c),...more
June 23, 1880 -
WASHINGTON D.C. In a unanimous panel ruling, the Federal Circuit invalidated a patent owned by Salem, Massachusetts inventor A. G. Bell. On February 14, 1876, Mr. Bell was granted Letters Patent No....more
On July 23, 2019, the Federal Circuit denied ChargePoint's request for panel rehearing and en banc review of its March 28, 2019 decision rendering four ChargePoint patents invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Since we did not...more
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
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
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
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
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
In Franz Kafka's novel The Trial, a man is accused of a non-specified crime by a shadowy governmental agency. The man repeatedly attempts to understand the nature of his alleged wrongdoing and his accusers. Ultimately, he...more
Mastermine brought a patent infringement action against Microsoft in the District of Minnesota. At issue were four claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,945,850 and three claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,429,518. After claim construction...more
An Obviousness Rejection in Patent-Eligibility Clothing? -
In Mayo v. Prometheus, the Supreme Court wrote "[w]e recognize that, in evaluating the significance of additional steps, the § 101 patent-eligibility inquiry and,...more
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 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
Anecdotally, there seems to be a loosening up regarding the application of § 101 by the District Courts. The 2014 Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l has been referred to as sounding a death knell for...more
10/17/2016
/ Bascom Global v AT&T Mobility ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Covered Business Method Patents ,
Enfish v Microsoft ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Software ,
USPTO
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
8/19/2016
/ Abstract Ideas ,
Claim Construction ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
Preponderance of the Evidence ,
Prior Art ,
Section 101
USPTO SealAs the fallout from the Supreme Court's Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l case makes its way through the federal courts and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), applicants and patentees continue to struggle...more
Section 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) established a transitional program through which the USPTO conducts post-grant reviews of covered business method (CBM) patents. For the most part, § 18 incorporates...more
7/16/2015
/ America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Claim Construction ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Covered Business Method Patents ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
SCOTUS ,
USPTO
The Ultramercial story is not over. In the latest step of a controversial case involving 35 U.S.C. § 101 that has been ongoing since 2009, patentee Ultramercial has petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The...more
6/4/2015
/ CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Copyright ,
Hulu ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Internet Streaming ,
Music ,
Online Videos ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Petition for Writ of Certiorari ,
Section 101 ,
Software ,
Technology ,
Ultramercial v Hulu ,
WildTangent v Ultramercial ,
YouTube