Archive | Litigation

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

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

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

Digital Messaging and Data Processing Patent Claims Survive Section 101/Alice Challenge

For the second day in a row, this blog focuses on a case upholding the patent-eligibility, under 35 U.S.C. § 101, of patent claims that recite processing and transmitting data.  In Signal IP, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 2-14-cv-02454 (CD Cal., March 22, 2016), the court upheld the patent-eligibility of claims of […]

Continue Reading

Unreasonable Section 101 Arguments Support “Exceptional Case” Finding and Award of Attorney Fees Against Patent Plaintiff

Based on the plaintiff’s “unreasonable § 101 positions and vexatious litigation strategy,” Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas found an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and granted a defense motion for attorney fees in eDekka LLC v. 3Balls.com, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-541 (E.D. Tex. December 17, 2015). At risk of overstating the […]

Continue Reading

Suit Tossed on Alice Grounds Does Not Merit Attorneys Fees Under Octane Fitness

A California district court recently considered the intersection between the patent-eligibility law of Alice and the fee award standard of Octane Fitness, set against the backdrop of a (mostly) successful challenge to the patent-in-suit’s claims before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  In Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., LLC, No. CV 13-01523 SJO (MRWx) […]

Continue Reading

How Does Patent-Eligibility Relate to Novelty and Non-obviousness?

Is prior art relevant to determining patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, or isn’t it?  In finding, on a motion for summary judgment, that claims drawn to “presenting information on a space-constrained display of a portable device” were patent-eligible, Judge Sparks of the Western District of Texas invited this question.  In Versata Software, Inc. v. […]

Continue Reading

Technological Environment Will Not Save Patent-Eligibility Under Alice

A recent decision under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by Judge Robinson of the District of Delaware is notable for two things: (1) the invalidation of patent claims drawn to a technological environment, and (2) the frank acknowledgment of the frustrating murkiness of patent-eligibility law in the wake of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.  Parus Holdings, […]

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes