Archive | Software Patents

Software Claims to Demand Forecasting and Inventory Management, Predictably, Not Patent-Eligible

The Supreme Court has refused to implement a rule that business methods claims are per se patent-ineligible.  Nonetheless, courts now routinely invalidate business method patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as exemplified in the recent case of Smart Software, Inc. v. PlanningEdge, LLC, No. 15-13814-PBS (D. Mass. June 17, 2016).  In this case, it […]

Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Upholds Claim Construction Limiting Claim Scope to Disclosed Embodiments

The Federal Circuit recently limited construction of patent claims to a scope supported by intrinsic evidence of embodiments disclosed in a patent specification. Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Solutions, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9786 (Fed. Cir. May 31, 2016). In a 2-1 decision, the panel upheld the district court’s construction of the asserted claims, […]

Continue Reading

Pump for Monitoring and Controlling Delivery of Fluids to a Patient Held Patent-Eligible

A complaint alleging infringement of two patents directed to monitoring and controlling an infusion pump has survived a motion to dismiss based on an allegation of unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Baxter International, Inc., v. CareFusion Corp., No. 15-ev-09986 (N.D. Ill. May 13, 2016).  The court found, under the Mayo/Alice test, that […]

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

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes