Archive | Software Patents

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

Patent Damages Must Be Supported by Substantial Evidence

Judge Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas granted a new trial on damages after Core Wireless (“Core”) was awarded a $3.5 million judgment against LG Electronics (“LG”) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,434,020 and 8,713,476. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Electronics, No. 2:14-cv-911-JRG (E.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2016).  In granting LG’s motion under […]

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

No Patent-Eligibility for “Identifying and Characterizing Errant Electronic Files”

Case:  Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., No. 2:14-cv-220 (W.D. Pa. Aug 4, 2016) Result: Rule 12 motion to dismiss granted based on invalidity of claims of U.S. Patent 7,757,298 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Patent: U.S. Patent 7,757,298, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Identifying and Characterizing Errant Electronic Files.”  Representative claim 1 […]

Continue Reading

Database Indexing Patent Claims Survive Alice Motion to Dismiss

Case:  Iron Gate Security, Inc. v. Lowe’s Companies, Inc., No. 15-cv-8814 (KBF) (S.D.N.Y. August 3, 2016). Result: Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss based on invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 denied, but defendant may bring a Section 101 motion again when there is a more “fulsome record.” Patent: U.S. Patent 7,203,693, entitled “Instantly indexed databases […]

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes