Archive | June, 2013

PTAB Holds Claims Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in Covered Business Method Review Proceeding

The USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), in its first final decision on a Covered Business Method Patent Review, has invalidated claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,553,350 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. SAP America, Inc. v. Versata Development Group, Inc., Case No. CBM2012-00001 (MPT) (PTAB June 11, 2013). The claims of the ’350 patent […]

Read full story

Internet Advertising Claims Are Patent-Eligible, Says Federal Circuit (Again)

A Federal Circuit panel has held that claims directed to monetizing Internet advertising are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, No. 2010-1544 (June 21, 2013). The Court’s opinion was authored by Chief Judge Rader, and joined by Judge O’Malley. Judge Lourie, the author of the en banc plurality opinion holding claims […]

Read full story

Modifying a Patent Infringement Injunction After Remand

Method claims can be the basis for enjoining a defendant from selling certain software, even if the software does not directly infringe asserted patent claims without a customer’s use. Therefore, following the Federal Circuit’s holding that certain asserted claims were invalid, it was appropriate to modify an injunction to exclude software configurations encompassed only by the invalidated […]

Read full story

Parsing Data Packets Held Not Patent-Eligible Subject Matter

Patent claims covering parsing and classifying data packets are not patent-eligible, according to the court in Compression Technology Solutions, LLC v. EMC Corp., No. C-12-01746 RMW (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2013). Claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 5,414,650  is a representative method claim: 9. An information processing method for processing an information stream comprising input packets, […]

Read full story

Patent Infringement, Summary Judgment, and Infringement Contentions

A patent infringement defendant’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement was denied where there were questions of fact concerning whether the defendant directly infringed asserted claims when it tested the accused system, even if it did not directly infringe otherwise. Ameranth, Inc. v. Papa John’s USA, Inc., No. 12-CV-729 JLS (NLS), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS […]

Read full story