Archive | Software Patents

Patent Infringement: Summary Judgment Fails Under the Doctrine of Equivalents

When is a patent infringement defendant entitled to summary judgment of non-infringement under the doctrine of equivalents?  That question was addressed in CSB-Systems International, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., No. 10-2156 (E.D. Pa. April 16, 2012), where the court granted summary judgment of no literal infringement, but denied the defendant summary judgment of non-infringement under […]

Continue Reading

Impact of Therasense: Defendant Denied Motion to Plead Inequitable Conduct

In Pixion, Inc. v. Citrix Systems, Inc., No. C 09-03496 (N.D. Cal. April 16, 2012), the court denied Citrix’s motion for leave to amend its Answer to plead the affirmative defense of inequitable conduct because Citrix could not “show that the USPTO would have rejected the” patents-in-suit even if the allegedly withheld reference had been […]

Continue Reading

Business Methods Patents Still Being Asserted in Litigation

Business methods patents are alive and well, based at least on an anecdotal review of recent court filings.  Consider, for example, a case that I have selected more or less at random, Phoenix Licensing LLC v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, filed on April 16, 2012, in the Eastern District of Texas.  Phoenix Licensing, which Internet […]

Continue Reading

Section 101: USPTO Issues Preliminary Mayo Guidelines

In case you missed it, just a day after last month’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., a case with lessons for software patents, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued “preliminary guidance” to patent examiners on how to proceed in light of Mayo.  The bottom line: examiners should […]

Continue Reading

Software Patent Means Claims Held Indefinite

A software patent means-plus-function claim is indefinite where the specification fails to disclose an algorithm that performs the recited function.  The Federal Circuit has now held that where a means limitation is associated with multiple functions, a claim is indefinite where the patent specification discloses only one of the functions.  Noah Systems, Inc v. Intuit, […]

Continue Reading

Notice Pleading Contributory and Induced Patent Infringement

Bare bones allegations that a defendant knew of a patent, and intended others’ infringement, were not enough to sustain allegations that the defendant indirectly, i.e., contributorily and by inducement, infringed the patent.  DR Systems, Inc. v. Avreo, Inc., No. 11-CV-0932 (S.D. Cal. March 29, 2012). The plaintiff’s complaint simply alleged that the defendant knew of […]

Continue Reading

Sanctions Denied Where Patent Plaintiff’s Theory of Infringement Was (Barely) Colorable

A plaintiff whose theory of patent infringement depended on reading the word “at” to mean “associated with” was not subject to sanctions for bringing suit, even though the court found “unconvincing” the “plaintiff’s advocacy of this unusual interpretation.”  NorthMobileTech LLC v. Simon Property Group, Inc., No. 11-cv-287 (W.D. Wisc. March 27, 2012). The claims of […]

Continue Reading

Computerized Method of Managing Financial Instruments Not Patent Eligible

Yet another district court has invalidated patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  In Digitech Information Systems, Inc. v. BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, No. 6:10-cv-1373 (M.D. Fla. March 30, 3012), the court held that a “method for selecting leases to optimize an investment portfolio,” implemented in a computer, did not recite patentable subject matter […]

Continue Reading

Therapeutic Treatment Regimen Not Patent Eligible Despite Computer Implementation

In a decision that was probably made easy by the Supreme Court’s recent Prometheus decision, a D.C. district court has invalidated, as patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, patent claims that recite using a computer to recommend a therapeutic treatment regimen.  SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories, SA, No. 08-00642 (D. D.C. March 30, […]

Continue Reading

Divided Infringement and Non-Infringement

A patent claim for configuring a “satellite” credit card of a main credit card was not infringed directly by any defendant, nor was the claim directly infringed by any third party, and therefore it could not be indirectly infringed.  Spendingmoney LLC v. American Express Co., No. 3:08cv1376 (D. Conn. March 27, 2012).  The claim of […]

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes