Archive | Software Patents

Haircuts Are Not Patent-Eligible, Says Federal Circuit

Claims in a patent application that were directed to a method of hair-cutting are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Federal Circuit has held.  In re Brown, No. 2015-1852 (Fed. Cir. April 22, 2016) (per curiam).  Although the court went through the motions of applying the two-part Alice/Mayo test, one has to think […]

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

How Did the Supreme Court’s Akamai Decision Change the Law of Divided Patent Infringement?

The Federal Circuit has given new life to a patent owner alleging that actions of multiple parties constitute direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).  Mankes v. Vivid Seats Ltd., No 15-1500 (Fed. Cir. April 22, 2016).  The patent owner had alleged direct infringement of its patent by parties who carried out only some and […]

Continue Reading

Plaintiff Stuck with Collateral Judgment of Patent Invalidity Under Alice in More Ways Than One

Not only did collateral estoppel apply from a prior finding of patent invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101, but a plaintiff was denied a motion to voluntarily dismiss its claim of patent infringement, the court expressly leaving open the specter of a fee award to the defendant as a prevailing party under 35 U.S.C. § […]

Continue Reading

PTAB Reverses Patent-Eligibility Rejection of Business Method Implemented in a Vending Machine

Contrary to what some might think, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) does not always affirm rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as evidenced by its recent decision in Ex parte Krampe, Appeal 2013-010784; Appl. No. 12/653,741; Technology Center 3600 (March 31, 2016).  In this case, the PTAB held that the Examiner had failed […]

Continue Reading

Claims Drawn to Monitoring and Analyzing Network Data Held Patent-Eligible

Claims drawn to “enterprise network” monitoring and analysis are patent-eligible, according to Delaware’s Judge Sue Robinson, who denied the defendant’s motion for Summary Judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in SRI International Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., No. 1:2013cv01534 (D. Del. April 11, 2016).  Some people – including many patent examiners – will […]

Continue Reading

How Do Biotech Patent-Eligibility Cases Speak to Computer Patent-Eligibility Cases?

The Federal Circuit recently held that a claim of U.S. Patent No. 5,612,179, reciting “methods of detecting genetic variations” was directed to unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Genetic Technologies Ltd. V. Merial, LLC, Nos. 2015-1202, 2015-1203 (Fed. Cir. April 8, 2016).  Anytime the Federal Circuit weighs in on Section 101 patent-eligibility, those […]

Continue Reading

E.D. Texas Judge Gilstrap Holds “Computerized Discount Redemption System” Patent-Ineligible

No one will be surprised that a court has held that patent claims directed to a “discount redemption system” are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Worth noting, however, is that this determination comes from Judge Gilstrap’s court in the Eastern District of Texas, that court’s patent-friendly reputation notwithstanding.  In NexusCard, Inc. v. The […]

Continue Reading

Court Holds Patent Claims Fail Alice Test After PTAB Declined to Institute CBM on Patent-Eligibility Grounds

Patent claims directed to “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” fail the abstract idea test of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, according to a federal district court.  Global Cash Access Inc. v. NRT Technology Corp., No. 2:15-cv-00822 […]

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes