Archive | Software Patents

Creating “Member” Webpages Held Not Patent-Eligible

Patent claims directed to allowing “Internet users to communicate with members of a group” via “designated webpages” are not patent-eligible under 35 USC § 101, said the court in EveryMD.com LLC v. Facebook Inc., No. CV 16-06473-AB (JEMx) (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2017).  Thus, the court granted the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings […]

Continue Reading

Are Patient Monitoring Claims Patent-Eligible?

Addressing a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, a court has held that some patent claims directed to monitoring and analyzing patient data cannot be deemed patent-ineligible at the pleading stage, while other asserted claims are patent-ineligible as a matter of law.  CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-11803-IT (D. Mass. May 4, 2017).  The […]

Continue Reading

Click-Fraud Prevention Patent-Ineligible in CBM Review

Two patents directed to “detect[ing] invalid and fraudulent impressions and clicks in web-based advertisement systems” are Covered Business Method Patents under Section 18 of the America Invents Act, and moreover are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the PTAB has held in two companion cases.  Google, Inc. v. Zuilli, Case CBM2016-00022, Patent 8,326,763 B2 (PTAB May […]

Continue Reading

CAFC Says Internet Message Publishing Not Patent-Eligible

The Federal Circuit has found patent-ineligible claims of five “patents [that] are generally directed to allowing ‘any person or organization to easily publish a message on the Internet.’” EasyWeb Innovations LLC v. Twitter Inc., No. 2016-2066 (May 12, 2017) (opinion by Judge Hughes; non-precedential). The patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,032,030; 7,596,606; 7,685,247; […]

Continue Reading

What Facts Support Inequitable Conduct at the Patent Office?

Here is an interesting case addressing whether the affirmative defense of inequitable conduct was adequately plead as an affirmative defense in answer to a complaint for patent infringement.  In Music Choice v. Stingray Digital Group Inc., 2-16-cv-00586 (E.D. Texas May 2, 2017), Magistrate Judge Payne recommended denying a motion to dismiss affirmative defenses and counterclaims […]

Continue Reading

Functional Claiming Can Spell Patent-Eligibility Doom

Granting a Rule 12 motion to dismiss, a court held patent-ineligible, under the Alice abstract idea test and 35 U.S.C. § 101, a patent claim that recited “determining automatically an optimal exposure level.”  SungKyunKwan University v. LMI Technologies USA Inc., Case No. 16-cv-06966-VC (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2017).  Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,957,639 […]

Continue Reading

On-Sale Bar and the AIA: New Language, Same Meaning

Despite a change in statutory language, the applicability of the on-sale bar to pursuing patent rights under the America Invents Act (AIA) is unchanged from prior law, said the Federal Circuit in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Here, the Federal Circuit held that the on-sale bar of the AIA applies to commercial […]

Continue Reading

The Latest USPTO Patent-Eligibility Guidance (April 2017)

As you probably know, the USPTO maintains a “subject matter [patent-]eligibility” web page with a plethora of information.  Most recently, on April 26, 2017, the Office posted a “quick reference sheet” illustrating decisions bearing on patent-eligibility analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the Mayo/Alice test.  Other documents, if you haven’t already taken a look, […]

Continue Reading

PTAB in CBM Kills Internet Advertising Click-Fraud Patent

Claims of a patent directed to detecting click-fraud in Internet advertising were eligible for Covered Business Method (CBM) Review, and moreover were patent-ineligible under the Mayo/Alice test and 35 U.S.C. § 101, said the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in a Final Written Decision in Google, Inc. v. Zuili, CBM2016-00008 (Patent 8,671,057 B1) (PTAB […]

Continue Reading

E.D. Texas Splits Patent-Eligibility of E-Mail Patents

Considering two patents directed to e-mail applications, Judge Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas deferred a patent-eligibility determination of one of the patents as premature prior to claim construction, but held that claim construction was not required for claims of the second patent to be deemed patent-ineligible under the Mayo/Alice patent-eligibility test. Umbanet, Inc. […]

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes