Author Archive | Charles Bieneman

Complaint Dismissed to Uncharted Patent Claims Under Iqbal/Twombley Notice Pleading Standard

For those paying attention to the evolving law of notice pleading patent infringement, a Florida court confirmed that patent plaintiffs face a raised bar under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)). The plaintiff, who provided a claim chart alleging a theory that one patent […]

Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Reminder that “Comprising” is Open-Ended in Patent Claims

Construing patent a patent claim whose preamble recited an “electrical power distribution plugstrip comprising in combination” a variety of elements listed in the body of the claim, the Federal Circuit overturned a finding of infringement based on a construction that “the claimed invention was limited to a single, fully-integrated device.”  Server Technology, Inc. v. American […]

Continue Reading

What Is a Party’s Burden in Seeking a Determination of Patent-Ineligibility?

A court denied a patent infringement defendant’s motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6); the defendant, alleging that four patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for failing to recite patent-eligible matter, failed in its burden of stating a representative claim.  JSDQ Mesh Technologies LLC v. Fluidmesh Networks, No. 1-16-cv-00212 (D. Del. Sept. 6, 2016). The […]

Continue Reading

Patent Claims to Cellular Network Messaging Survive Summary Judgment

Case:  Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v. Sprint Communications Company L.P., No. 12-859 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 24, 2016). Result: Summary judgment of patent-ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 denied (in the course of deciding a myriad of summary judgment motions). Patents: U.S. Patent No. 6,885,870 (“Transferring of a message”).  Claim 1 recites: A method […]

Continue Reading

Claims to Software for Automating Manual Tasks Are Patent-Eligible, Says Federal Circuit

After characterizing the patents as “[e]ssentially . . . aim[ing] to automate a 3-D animator’s tasks,” the Federal Circuit held that claims of patents entitled “Method for automatically animating lip synchronization and facial expression of animated characters” are patent-eligible.  McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016). The Federal Circuit […]

Continue Reading

A Federal Circuit Reminder on the Limits of Obviousness

The circumstances are few in which “common sense” can substitute for a claim limitation missing from the prior art in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Federal Circuit explained in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc., No. 2015-2073 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2016) (opinion by Judge O’Malley, joined by Judges Linn and Moore).  […]

Continue Reading

Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Gives Little Weight to Claiming a Functional Result

The Federal Circuit has upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s broadest reasonable interpretation of claims including “a restore application starting a restore of a set of files” in an Inter Partes Review proceeding.  Veritas Techs. LLC v. Veeam Software Corp., No. 2015-1894 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 30, 2016).  This case will garner attention for the […]

Continue Reading

2 of 3 Intellectual Ventures Patents Killed Under Alice in E.D. Texas

On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss based on invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Judge Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas held that “the claims of U.S. RE43,715 and U.S. Patent No. 6,782,370 are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, and the claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,969,324 are not directed to patent-ineligible subject […]

Continue Reading

Patent Claims to Weather Alerts Not Patent-Eligible Under Section 101

Case:  Zimmers v. Eaton Corp., No. 2:15-CV-2398) (S.D. Ohio August 2, 2016). Result: Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 granted. Patent: U.S. Patent No. 9,015,256 (“Alert notification system”).  Claim 1, available in full at the foregoing link, recites “[a] system for providing a message to a […]

Continue Reading

Early PG-Review Decision Shows Patent Examiners and PTAB Diverge on Alice Questions

Patent claims directed to “storage container tracking and delivery” are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has held in a Final Written Decision in a Post-grant Review proceeding.  Netsirv and Local Motion MN v. Boxbee, Inc., PGR2015-00009 (Patent 8,756,166 B2) (PTAB Aug. 2, 2016).  I would not be […]

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes