Archive | February, 2017

PTAB: BRI of Method Claim Requires Conditional Limitation

Thirty-five PTAB decisions cite Ex parte Schulhauser since that case was designated precedential in October 2016.  Of those thirty-five decisions, all except for one held that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method claim does not require conditional limitations.  The one exception is Ex parte Hehenberger, Appeal No. 2015-007421 (Jan. 31, 2016). By way of […]

Continue Reading

Data Back-Up Claims Held Patent-Ineligible under Alice

In a clear demonstration that patent-eligibility and novelty go hand-in-hand – despite some courts’ denial of this reality – a court has held that claims directed to “remote mirroring of digital data” are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the Alice/Mayo abstract idea test.  Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., No. 13-440-LPS (D. […]

Continue Reading

CAFC: User-Tailored Data Is Patent-Ineligible Abstract Idea

A Federal Circuit panel easily affirmed a lower court holding of patent-ineligibility of claims “directed to systems and methods for allowing computers to process data that are dynamically modified based upon external-to-the-device information, such as location and time.” Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corp., No. 2016-1188 et al. (Fed. Cir. Feb 17, 2017) (opinion […]

Continue Reading

Patent Obviousness and Reasonable Expectation of Success

The Federal Circuit has (mostly) sustained the PTAB’s findings that claims of US Patent No. 7,433,483 are obvious over prior art, explaining that obviousness under 35 USC § 103 required, in essence, a showing that the proposed combination of references would result in an improvement, even if not the best possible improvement. Slot Speaker Technologies, […]

Continue Reading

Volitional Conduct: an Element of Copyright Infringement

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held in Perfect 10 v. Giganews, No 15-5550 (Jan 23, 2017), that an alleged copyright infringer can only be found directly liable if its “volitional conduct” actually causes the infringing activity to happen. Notably, the Court rejected Appellant’s argument that the Supreme Court’s ruling in American Broadcasting v. […]

Continue Reading

Website Doesn’t Create Personal Jurisdiction in Patent Case

An Ohio court has transferred a patent case to the Eastern District of Washington after finding that the defendant’s website was insufficient to create specific personal jurisdiction.  Zen Indus., Inc. v. Hoffman Mfg., Inc., No. 1:16 CV 2352 (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 9, 2016).  Applying Federal Circuit law to consider personal jurisdiction with respect to the […]

Continue Reading

Fitbit Survives 12(b)(6) Motion Attacking Patent-Eligibility

Fitbit sued Jawbone, its rival, alleging infringement of three patents directed to preparing wearable activity trackers with client and/or server computers, whereupon Jawbone unsuccessfully brought a Rule 12 motion to dismiss alleging patent-ineligible subject matter. Fitbit, Inc. v. AliphCom, No. 15-cv-04073-EJD (N.D. Cal. Feb 9, 2017.)  The asserted patents were U.S. Patent Nos. 9,026,053, 9,106,307, […]

Continue Reading

Fed. Cir. Affirms Command and Control Patent-Ineligibility

In a one-line per curiam Rule 36 judgment, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s judgment on the pleadings that claims of patents directed to “command-and-control processing” recited ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Appistry Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 2015-2077 (Fed. Cir. Feb 10, 2017) (Judges Lourie, Hughes, and Stoll).  The patents at […]

Continue Reading

Article-Tracking Held Patent-Ineligible Abstract Idea

Patent claims drawn to determining if articles are in a specified geographic area, and then taking an action based on the determination, are not eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l.  CalAmp Wireless Networks Corporation v. ORBCOMM, Inc., No. 3:16cv906-HEH (E.D. Va. Feb 9, 2017.) Accordingly, the […]

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes