Software Claims to Demand Forecasting and Inventory Management, Predictably, Not Patent-Eligible

The Supreme Court has refused to implement a rule that business methods claims are per se patent-ineligible.  Nonetheless, courts now routinely invalidate business method patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as exemplified in the recent case of Smart Software, Inc. v. PlanningEdge, LLC, No. 15-13814-PBS (D. Mass. June 17, 2016).  In this case, it […]

Continue Reading

Patent Claim Construction Lessons, or Not, from Indacon v. Facebook

When a case goes against the patentee on the issue of claim construction, one wonders whether different actions by patent prosecution counsel could have changed the result. The prosecutor uniquely influences claim construction, a legal determination that is unlike the question of infringement, which depends on the accused infringer’s products, and validity, which often turns […]

Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Upholds Claim Construction Limiting Claim Scope to Disclosed Embodiments

The Federal Circuit recently limited construction of patent claims to a scope supported by intrinsic evidence of embodiments disclosed in a patent specification. Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Solutions, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9786 (Fed. Cir. May 31, 2016). In a 2-1 decision, the panel upheld the district court’s construction of the asserted claims, […]

Continue Reading

Pump for Monitoring and Controlling Delivery of Fluids to a Patient Held Patent-Eligible

A complaint alleging infringement of two patents directed to monitoring and controlling an infusion pump has survived a motion to dismiss based on an allegation of unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Baxter International, Inc., v. CareFusion Corp., No. 15-ev-09986 (N.D. Ill. May 13, 2016).  The court found, under the Mayo/Alice test, that […]

Continue Reading

Complaint Alleging Business Methods Patent Infringement Results in Exceptional Case Finding and Fee Award

After granting a Rule 12 motion for judgment on the pleadings of invalidity of US Patent No. 6,381,582, and after the Federal Circuit affirmed that judgment without comment, a Delaware District Court found an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s fees and costs.  Inventor Holdings, LLC […]

Continue Reading

Patent Drafting for Patent-Eligibility (Following Alice, Enfish, and TLI Communications)

Practitioners’ continuing frustrations notwithstanding, recent cases have demonstrated that the metes and bounds of patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are gaining in clarity.  Undeniably, much subjectivity and unpredictability remain.  Nonetheless, at the June 3, 2016, University of Dayton School of Law Program in Law and Technology (PILT) Seminar, I was able to present some […]

Continue Reading

Claims to a “Computer Memory System” Patent-Ineligible Even After Enfish

Claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,953,740, directed to “a computer memory system connectable to a processor and having one or more programmable operational characteristics,” were held invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in Visual Memory, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., No. 15-789-RGA (D. Del. May 27, 2016).  Accordingly, the court granted the defendant’s motion, brought under […]

Continue Reading

Claims to Managing Electronic Messages Held to be Not Patent-Eligible

A court was easily able to analogize claims of two patents directed to electronic messaging to manual communications processes; the court consequently granted a motion for summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Mobile Telecommunications Technologies LLC v. Blackberry Corp., No. 3:12-cv-1652-M (N.D. Texas May 12, 2016). Independent claims 1 and 8 of […]

Continue Reading

Claims to “Operating Applications for Remote Terminal Devices” Patent-Ineligible, Says Delaware’s Judge Robinson

Delaware’s Judge Robinson, who recently pointedly noted other courts’ aggression in holding software patent claims to recite patent-ineligible subject matter, has granted a motion to dismiss, finding that patent claims directed to remote operation of a terminal device are not patent-eligible.  Device Enhancement LLC v.  Amazon.com, Inc., Civ. No. 15-762-SLR (D. Del. May 17, 2016).  […]

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes