Archive | Patentable Subject Matter

Another Easy Section 101 Case at the Federal Circuit

In a per curiam decision on an appeal brought by a pro se patent owner, a Federal Circuit panel of Judges O’Malley, Linn, and Stoll held that claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,744,933 (“Payroll processing, certification, reporting and project management system and method”) were not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Shortridge v. Foundation Construction […]

Continue Reading

Patent Claims Reading on MPEG Survive Alice Challenge

Claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,323,396, 5,777,992, and 5,539,829, directed to audio encoding techniques for the MPEG standard, survived a patent-eligibility challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 101 after the court, favorably comparing the patents’ claims to those in Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., found that the claims were not abstract.  Audio MPEG Inc. v. Dell […]

Continue Reading

Claims to BIOS Security Remain Patent-Ineligible Under Enfish

Claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,892,304 (“System and method for securely utilizing basic input and output system (BIOS) services”) remained patent-ineligible even when reconsidered in the wake of Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.  The court thus affirmed its prior judgment of patent-invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Kinglite Holdings Inc. V. Micro-Star International Co. Ltd., […]

Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Maintains Unpredictability of the Law of Patent-Eligibility

The Federal Circuit vacated a summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 after disagreeing with a district court that claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,604,929 were “directed to a patent-ineligible law of nature–that hepatocytes [liver cells] are capable of surviving multiple freeze-thaw cycles–and that the patented process lacks the requisite inventive concept.”  Rapid […]

Continue Reading

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

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

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes