News & Analysis as of

Exceptional Case Section 101 Patents

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - August 2024 #4

Realtime Adaptive Streaming L.L.C. v. Sling TV, L.L.C., Appeal No. 2023-1035 (Fed. Cir. August 23, 2024) In its only precedential patent decision this week, the Federal Circuit helped clarify which facts may be...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - July 2019

PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Elbit Systems Land and C4I Ltd. v. Hughes Network Systems, LLC, Appeal No. 2018-1910 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2019) - In this appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of...more

Knobbe Martens

Plausible and Specific Factual Allegations That Aspects of a Claim Are Inventive Are Sufficient to Defeat a Motion to Dismiss for...

Knobbe Martens on

CELLSPIN SOFT, INC. V. FITBIT, INC. ET AL. Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Summary: While not all factual allegations that are...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - March 2019 #4

SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., Appeal No. 2017-2223 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 20, 2019) - In a decision following trial, the Federal Circuit addressed the issue of the eligibility of patent claims directed to technology meant...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - July 2017

Knobbe Martens on

District Court Abused Discretion in Not Finding Case Exceptional - In Rothschild Connected Devices v. Guardian Protection Services, Appeal No. 2016-2521, the Federal Circuit held that a district court abused its discretion...more

Knobbe Martens

District Court Awards Attorney’s Fees after Holding That Plaintiff Had Repeatedly Sought to Avoid a Section 101 Ruling

Knobbe Martens on

In Shipping and Transit, LLC v. Hall Enterprises, Inc., a district court recently held that a patent infringement case was “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and the defendant was entitled to recover attorney fees and costs...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | October 2016

Knobbe Martens on

Withdrawal of Claims During Prosecution Can Trigger Prosecution History Estoppel In UCB, Inc. v. Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd., Appeal No. 2015-1957, the Federal Circuit held that prosecution estoppel can apply even...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Judge Gilstrap awards Section 285 fees where Plaintiff’s Section 101 positions cross the “threshold of exceptionality.”

On December 17, 2015, Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) ruled that, in light of Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“Alice”), a plaintiff’s position on...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

eDekka LLC v. 3balls.com, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2015)

As 2015 drew to a close, the toll of the Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l decision on software and business method patents became apparent. Post Alice, approximately 70% of all patents challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been...more

Fenwick & West LLP

Octane Fitness and Patent Eligibility

Fenwick & West LLP on

The Supreme Court’s decision in the patent fee shifting case, Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., No. 12-1184, has literally nothing to do with patent eligibility. However, it does demonstrate an approach to...more

10 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