Archive | November, 2016

“Covered Business Method” Is Not Anything Under the Sun, Says Federal Circuit

Claims directed to “managing distribution of location information generated for wireless communications devices,” do not recited a “covered business method” within the meaning of the America Invents Act, said the Federal Circuit in Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google, Inc., No. 2015-1812 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 21, 2016).  The court thus remanded the case to the Patent […]

Continue Reading

Determining Willful Patent Infringement: Ramifications of Halo Pulse Through the Courts

The Federal Circuit recently vacated and remanded a lower court’s holding that a patent infringement defendant could not have willfully infringed as a matter of law. Alfred E. Mann Found. for Sci. Research v. Cochlear Corp. (Fed. Cir. Nov. 17, 2016).  The lower court’s decision was based on the objective standard prong of the now […]

Continue Reading

Automated Migration of Computer Settings Not Patent-Eligible, Says Federal Circuit

In a non-precedential decision that appears to have been fairly easily reached, a Federal Circuit panel affirmed a district court’s summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for patent claims directed to migrating computer configuration settings.  Tranxition, Inc. v. Lenovo (United States) Inc., Nos. 20151907, 20151941, 20151958 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 16, 2016) (opinion […]

Continue Reading

Willful Patent Infringement and Opinions after Halo

As my partner Tom Bejin discussed in this recent webinar, Addressing Willful Patent Infringement Post-Halo, the pendulum governing standards for enhanced damages for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284 gyrated again when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016).  The Supreme Court rejected the two-part […]

Continue Reading

New Day, Different Alice Ruling: Youtoo v. Twitter and F5 v. Radware

In two recent § 101 orders on motions to dismiss, two district courts demonstrated how inconsistent patent-eligibility jurisprudence remains. The courts faced claims of similar complexity, similar subject matter, and similar reliance on software; sat in the same procedural posture; used the same number of pages of analysis (five); and reached opposite conclusions. Youtoo Technologies […]

Continue Reading

When Can Patent-Eligibility Be Decided on the Pleadings?

Defendants often urge courts to conclude that claim construction is not a prerequisite for deciding patent-eligibility on a defendant’s Rule 12 motion to dismiss. Here is a case in which a magistrate judge reached this conclusion but nonetheless recommended denying the defendants’ motion (without prejudice).  Kaavo, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc., Nos. 15-638-LPS-CJB, 15-640-LPS-CJB (D. Del. […]

Continue Reading

Divided Infringement Means No Patent Infringement, Says Judge Gilstrap

Claims to a computer system for providing users with location information about an object were not directly infringed where the claims recited a step of user input not under the direction or control of the party requesting and receiving the input.  Accordingly, the court granted a motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of these claims.  […]

Continue Reading

Split Fed. Cir. Panel Bases Patent-Eligibility of Network Management Claims on Claim Construction

Co-authored by Mark St. Amour. How much does claim construction matter when determining patent-eligibility under 35 USC § 101? In Amdocs Ltd. V. Openet Telecom, Inc., (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2016) a split Federal Circuit panel reversed a district court decision holding claims of four patents invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to […]

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes