Archive | America Invents Act

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

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

Does Claim Construction Matter in Determining Patent-Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101?

Patent applicants and owners should position claims for narrow constructions where subject matter is susceptible to challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 101, suggests a recent decision from the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).  In a Covered Business Method (CBM) review Final Written Decision, the PTAB held that claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,402,281, […]

Continue Reading

Patent Claims to Collecting Website Feedback Not a “Financial Product or Service,” Do Not Qualify for CBM Review, Says PTAB

Patent claims reciting subject matter that, among other applications, could be used in the financial industry, do not qualify for Covered Business Method (CBM) review, said the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Qualtrics, LLC v. OpinionLab, Inc., Case CBM2016-00003 (PTAB April 13, 2016).  Claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,041,805 were directed to collecting […]

Continue Reading

Ho-Hum – Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Decision that Claims Directed to Securities Trading System Are Not Patent-Eligible

In a one-word per curiam order, the Federal Circuit has affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s holding that patent claims directed to a securities trading system are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Chicago Board Options Exchange Inc. v. International Securities Exchange LLC, 2015-1728, 2015-1729, 2015-1730 (Fed. Cir. March 25, 2016). Here are links […]

Continue Reading

Patent Directed to “Data Security System for a Database” Qualifies for Covered Business Method Review at PTAB

In Square Inc v. Protegrity Corp., CBM2014-00182 (March 2, 2016), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) offered some insight as to when patent claims will be subject to covered business method (CBM) review. The patent at issue is US 8,402,281, titled “Data Security System for a Database.” Claim 33 was one of the illustrative […]

Continue Reading

PTAB Denies Petition for CBM Review of Patent Directed to ATM Banking Transactions: a Portent for Patent-Eligibility of Business Methods? (Maybe Not)

The USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has denied a petition for Covered Business Method (CBM) Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,081,792, whose claims recite methods of “providing money or an item of value to an account-holder” and “paying on behalf of a person for money or an item of value, from an account […]

Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Vacates PTAB Written Decision in IPR For Inadequate Explanation of Invalidity Holding

In a non-precedential opinion, Cutsforth, Inc. v. MotivePower, Inc., No. 15-1316 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 22, 2015), the Federal Circuit criticized the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for failing to explain its obviousness rejection of U.S. Patent No. 7,990,018, which is directed to a removable brush holder. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the decision back […]

Continue Reading

PTAB Grants Request for Re-hearing from Denial of Petition to Institute Inter Partes Review

Requests to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for rehearing of decisions on Petitions for Inter Partes Review are commonplace.  PTAB decisions summarily denying them are as well.  In AVX Corporation v. Greatbatch, Ltd., IPR2015-00710, Paper 13 (Jan. 13 2016), however, a Petitioner succeeded in convincing a PTAB panel to reverse itself (in part) on […]

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes