Author Archive | Charles Bieneman

Enfish Does Not Save Patent Claims to Testing Computer Memory

U.S. Patent Nos. 6,574,759 and 6,704,891 are directed to “Verifying and Improving Run-Time of a Memory Test.”  This seeming technical improvement, deemed by the court to be a mere automation of a known manual process, was not enough to save the patent claims from a finding of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 after the […]

Continue Reading

Complaint Alleging Business Methods Patent Infringement Results in Exceptional Case Finding and Fee Award

After granting a Rule 12 motion for judgment on the pleadings of invalidity of US Patent No. 6,381,582, and after the Federal Circuit affirmed that judgment without comment, a Delaware District Court found an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s fees and costs.  Inventor Holdings, LLC […]

Continue Reading

Patent Drafting for Patent-Eligibility (Following Alice, Enfish, and TLI Communications)

Practitioners’ continuing frustrations notwithstanding, recent cases have demonstrated that the metes and bounds of patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are gaining in clarity.  Undeniably, much subjectivity and unpredictability remain.  Nonetheless, at the June 3, 2016, University of Dayton School of Law Program in Law and Technology (PILT) Seminar, I was able to present some […]

Continue Reading

Claims to a “Computer Memory System” Patent-Ineligible Even After Enfish

Claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,953,740, directed to “a computer memory system connectable to a processor and having one or more programmable operational characteristics,” were held invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in Visual Memory, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., No. 15-789-RGA (D. Del. May 27, 2016).  Accordingly, the court granted the defendant’s motion, brought under […]

Continue Reading

Claims to Managing Electronic Messages Held to be Not Patent-Eligible

A court was easily able to analogize claims of two patents directed to electronic messaging to manual communications processes; the court consequently granted a motion for summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Mobile Telecommunications Technologies LLC v. Blackberry Corp., No. 3:12-cv-1652-M (N.D. Texas May 12, 2016). Independent claims 1 and 8 of […]

Continue Reading

Claims to “Operating Applications for Remote Terminal Devices” Patent-Ineligible, Says Delaware’s Judge Robinson

Delaware’s Judge Robinson, who recently pointedly noted other courts’ aggression in holding software patent claims to recite patent-ineligible subject matter, has granted a motion to dismiss, finding that patent claims directed to remote operation of a terminal device are not patent-eligible.  Device Enhancement LLC v.  Amazon.com, Inc., Civ. No. 15-762-SLR (D. Del. May 17, 2016).  […]

Continue Reading

Claims to Devices Sharing GPS Addresses Not Patent-Eligible in E.D. Texas

Patent claims drawn to “entering location information into a positional information device” were held patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in Rothschild Location Technologies LLC v. Geotab USA, Inc., 6:15-cv-682-RWS-JDL (E.D. Texas May 16, 2016).  Judge Schroeder upheld the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge John D. Love, in which Judge Love recommended granting a […]

Continue Reading

USPTO to Examiners after Enfish: Claim Can Be Patent Eligible Without Physical Elements

Patent applicants who have been frustrated by patent examiners who reject claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 alleging that “software per se” is not patent-eligible will be heartened by the USPTO’s May 19, 2016, memorandum concerning “Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decisions” to the Patent Examining Corps.  In that memorandum, discussing the recent Federal Circuit case […]

Continue Reading

Administering Digital Images Not Patent-Eligible, Says Federal Circuit

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of patent claims drawn to “recording and administering digital images.”  TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, Nos. 2015-1372[, etc.] (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2016).  In an opinion authored by Judge Hughes, author of the recent decision upholding the patent-eligibility of claims in […]

Continue Reading

Clinical Research Methods Not Patent-Eligible Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

Five patents claiming methods of performing and managing clinical research were held patent-ineligible under the Alice/Mayo abstract idea test in eResearchTechnology, Inc. v. CRF, Inc., No. 15-918 (W.D. Pa. May 10, 2016).  After finding each of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,065,180; 8,145,519; 8,433,605; 6,879,970; and 7,415,447 invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the court granted a […]

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes