Patent-Eligibility of Auction Claims Is Never a Good Bet After Alice

Patent claims directed to a “method of hosting a computer-based auction over the internet” were held invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in Advanced Auctions LLC v. eBay, Inc., No. 13CV1612 BEN (JLB) (S.D. Cal., March 26, 2015). The court found the patent claims directed to “the abstract idea of an auction and the generic […]

Continue Reading

Internet Auction Claims Held Not Patent-Eligible

Patent claims directed to a two-mode computer-based Internet auction have been held patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and a motion for judgment on the pleadings under FRCP 12(c) was accordingly granted in Advanced Auctions LLC v. Ebay Inc., No. 13CV1612 BEN (JLB) (S.D. Cal Mar. 27, 2015). According to United States Patent No. 8,266,000, […]

Continue Reading

A District Court’s Denial of a Motion to Stay Is Not Appealable After a Petition Seeking a CBM Review Proceeding at the PTAB Has Been Filed (but not Granted)

The Federal Circuit has dismissed, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a denial of a motion to stay where petitions had been filed, but not granted, seeking covered business method (“CBM”) reviews  at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5204 (Fed. […]

Continue Reading

Internet Sales Processing Claims Held Patent-Ineligible

Patent claims directed to a sales processing system for conducting Internet business transactions were held patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Consequently, the court in Priceplay.com, Inc. v. AOL Adver., Inc., No. 14-92-RGA (D. Del. Mar. 18, 2015), granted the defendant’s FRCP 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss with regard to all claims of United States Patent […]

Continue Reading

Motion for Patent-Ineligibility of Modem Communications Software Denied

A court has declined at the pleadings stage to hold patent-ineligible, under 35 U.S.C. § 101, patent claims directed to software controlling communications between a user modem and a telephone company modem. The court in Modern Telecom Sys. LLC v. Juno Online Servs., Case No. SA CV 14-0348-DOC (ANx) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2015), denied […]

Continue Reading

Patent Term Adjustment Can Be Reduced Even Without “Actual Delay” in Prosecution

In Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Lee, the Federal Circuit that supplemental applicant submissions during patent prosecution need not incur “actual delay” to be counted as a reduction in calculating patent term adjustment (PTA). 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2828 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 26, 2015). Plaintiff Gilead Sciences, Inc. (“Gilead”) had appealed the decision of the Eastern […]

Continue Reading

Attorneys’ Fees Awarded in Patent Case Under Octane Fitness Standard

Discovery abuse and a reversal in an inventor’s trial testimony made for an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and therefore warranted an award of attorneys’ fees against a losing plaintiff in Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Systems Inc., Case No. 4:12-cv-01971-CW (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2015). This case provides an example […]

Continue Reading

Pleading Trade Secret Misappropriation Requires Detail, Even If Not All Support Needed for the Plaintiff to Ultimately Prevail

In Vesta Corp. v. Amdocs Mgmt., No. 3:14-cv-1142-HZ (D. Or. Jan. 13, 2015), the plaintiff survived a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a claim of alleged trade secret misappropriation.  The plaintiff alleged that the defendant stole its confidential information during a joint development effort, and used that information to develop a competing product. Both the […]

Continue Reading

Pleading Removal of Copyright Management Information Under the DMCA (and a Related Trademark Claim)

In Fischer v. Forrest, 14 Civ. 1304 (PAE); 14 Civ. 1307 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. Jan 13, 2015), the court denied a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a suit alleging copyright and trademark infringements. Of particular interest in this post is the pleading required to state a claim for remove of Copyright Management Information (CMI) under the […]

Continue Reading

Patent Claims to Dynamic Pricing Held Not Patent-Eligible (Again)

A Delaware district judge has adopted a magistrate’s recommendation to hold patent-ineligible claims directed to dynamically pricing a transaction, and dynamically providing product upgrade options to a customer. Tenon & Groove LLC v. Plusgrade SEC, No. 1:12-cv-01118 (D. Del. March 11, 2015). The patents-in-suit were U.S. Patent Nos. 7,418,409 and 8,145,536. In a reminder to […]

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes