Archive | May, 2017

Creating “Member” Webpages Held Not Patent-Eligible

Patent claims directed to allowing “Internet users to communicate with members of a group” via “designated webpages” are not patent-eligible under 35 USC § 101, said the court in EveryMD.com LLC v. Facebook Inc., No. CV 16-06473-AB (JEMx) (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2017).  Thus, the court granted the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings […]

Continue Reading

Are Patient Monitoring Claims Patent-Eligible?

Addressing a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, a court has held that some patent claims directed to monitoring and analyzing patient data cannot be deemed patent-ineligible at the pleading stage, while other asserted claims are patent-ineligible as a matter of law.  CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-11803-IT (D. Mass. May 4, 2017).  The […]

Continue Reading

Click-Fraud Prevention Patent-Ineligible in CBM Review

Two patents directed to “detect[ing] invalid and fraudulent impressions and clicks in web-based advertisement systems” are Covered Business Method Patents under Section 18 of the America Invents Act, and moreover are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the PTAB has held in two companion cases.  Google, Inc. v. Zuilli, Case CBM2016-00022, Patent 8,326,763 B2 (PTAB May […]

Continue Reading

CAFC Says Internet Message Publishing Not Patent-Eligible

The Federal Circuit has found patent-ineligible claims of five “patents [that] are generally directed to allowing ‘any person or organization to easily publish a message on the Internet.’” EasyWeb Innovations LLC v. Twitter Inc., No. 2016-2066 (May 12, 2017) (opinion by Judge Hughes; non-precedential). The patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,032,030; 7,596,606; 7,685,247; […]

Continue Reading

PTAB Finds Reasoning for 103 Rejection Insufficient in Ex Parte Appeal

Citing KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc, the PTAB in Ex Parte Mattisson (Appeal No. 2016-004484, April 14, 2017) agreed with the ex parte Appellants and reversed the Examiner’s rejection based on insufficient rationale to support an obviousness rejection. Specifically, the PTAB held that the Examiner’s reasoning that “a person of ordinary skill would not […]

Continue Reading

CAFC Vacates PTAB Decision Based on Claim Interpretation of “Aseptic”

The Federal Circuit, in Nestle USA v. Steuben Foods, vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR) for an unreasonably broad interpretation of the term “aseptic.” Notably, where the patent refers to “FDA level of aseptic” for aseptic packaging, the proper interpretation should be focused on […]

Continue Reading

Estoppel, or Lack Thereof, in Inter Partes Reexaminations

The Federal Circuit recently clarified the scope of estoppel for inter partes reexaminations, ruling in a pair of decisions that a district-court decision only estops arguments against individual claims of a patent and that a dismissal without prejudice does not estop the reexamination. In re Affinity Labs of Texas, 2016-1092, -1172, -1173 (Fed. Cir. May […]

Continue Reading

What Facts Support Inequitable Conduct at the Patent Office?

Here is an interesting case addressing whether the affirmative defense of inequitable conduct was adequately plead as an affirmative defense in answer to a complaint for patent infringement.  In Music Choice v. Stingray Digital Group Inc., 2-16-cv-00586 (E.D. Texas May 2, 2017), Magistrate Judge Payne recommended denying a motion to dismiss affirmative defenses and counterclaims […]

Continue Reading

Functional Claiming Can Spell Patent-Eligibility Doom

Granting a Rule 12 motion to dismiss, a court held patent-ineligible, under the Alice abstract idea test and 35 U.S.C. § 101, a patent claim that recited “determining automatically an optimal exposure level.”  SungKyunKwan University v. LMI Technologies USA Inc., Case No. 16-cv-06966-VC (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2017).  Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,957,639 […]

Continue Reading

Markman Construction of “Controller” in the District of Delaware

The order for the Markman construction in Avid Technology, Inc. v. Harmonic Inc. (DED, Docket 12-627) was issued on May 2, 2017. The case involves U.S. Patent No. 5,495,291 titled “Decompression system for compressed video data for providing uninterrupted decompressed video data output.” The Court construed the term “controller” to mean “a component or subsystem […]

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes