About Charles Bieneman

Author Archive | Charles Bieneman

PTAB Holds Software Claims Indefinite

With all the attention paid recently to patent-eligibility questions under 35 U.S.C. § 101, patent drafters should take note of a recent decision by the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) holding claims indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.  In In re Dawson, Appeal 2012-004396 (Sept. 18, 2014), the PTAB entered a […]

Read full story

Patent Claims For Retrieval of Data from Medical Database Held Not Patent-Eligible

Patent claims directed to a medical database did not meet patent-eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, the court in Cogent Med., Inc. v. Elsevier Inc., Nos. C-13-4479-RMW; C-13-4483-RMW; C-13-4486-RMW (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2014), granted a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs complaint for patent infringement for failing to state a claim under FRCP […]

Read full story

Court Finds Patent Claims Directed to Abstract Idea But Denies Motion to Dismiss

Patent claims directed “to the abstract idea of verifying a transaction” included “a limitation requiring pseudorandom tag generating software that could not be done with pen and paper,” which limitation could plausibly be read as narrowing the claims to make them patent-eligible. Therefore, the court in Card Verification Solutions, LLC v. Citigroup Inc., No. 13 […]

Read full story

Online Terms and Conditions Are Usually Enforceable

Many commercial transactions are governed by online terms and conditions provided by one party, to which another party may be bound even if provided only with a reference or link to the online terms and conditions. This truth is illustrated by the recent case of Tuscany S. Am. v. Pentagon Freight Sys., No. 4:12-CV-1309 (S.D. […]

Read full story

Patent Claims Drawn to Internet Monitoring and Network Control Are Patent-Eligible, Delaware Court Holds

Patent claims directed to remote monitoring of network sessions and management of computer network access are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, according to a recent Delaware decision. Helios Software v. Spectorsoft Corp., No. 12-081-LPS (Sept. 18, 2014). The court’s decision came in the midst of decisions on a volley of summary judgment motions that […]

Read full story

Initiation of CBM Review on Section 101 Grounds Justifies Stay of Patent Case

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the decision of Judge Stark in the District of Delaware to stay a lawsuit alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,625,582 following the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s decision to institute a Covered Business Method (CBM) review of the ’582 patent. Benefit Funding Systems, LLC v. Advance America Cash Advance […]

Read full story

Prior Art Found Pertinent to Patent-Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

Quoting Bob Dylan in “You’re a Big Girl Now,” from the landmark album Blood on the Tracks, Judge Wu in the Central District of California has summed up the present state of patent-eligibility jurisprudence under 35 U.S.C. § 101: “A change in the weather has known to be extreme.” McRo, Inc. v. Codemasters Inc., No. […]

Read full story

Yet Another Business Method Patent Fails Section 101 “Abstract Idea” Test

Yet another court has held yet more business method patents invalid for failing to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In Open Text S.A. v. Alfresco Software Ltd., No. No. 13-cv-04843-JD (Sept 19, 2014), the court granted the defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, holding that claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,647,372 […]

Read full story

PTAB Invalidates Business Method Claims in CBM Review

Inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review proceedings conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office are emerging as a potent tool for invalidating patents. Under the Covered Business Method (CBM) PG-Review available to accused infringers, the PTAB can invalidate patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § […]

Read full story

Goodbye to Form 18?

Form 18 appended to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides a form complaint for pleading patent infringement. To the chagrin of many defendants, Form 18 has been used to justify very bare-bones complaints of patent infringement even after the Supreme Court’s Iqbal and Twombley decisions requiring more detailed pleading. Now Form 18 may be […]

Read full story