Archive | Patentable Subject Matter

Federal Circuit Easily Affirms Patent-Ineligibility of Claims Drawn to Managing Shipping Containers

Like drilling a small hole in the hull of the Titanic (post-iceberg), the Federal Circuit has affirmed a district court’s judgment on the pleadings of patent-ineligibility of claims directed to a “container monitoring system for accumulating and storing information on shipping containers including container location and container load status.” Wireless Media Innovations LLC v. Maher […]

Continue Reading

Claims Directed to Conducting Transactions Via Interactive TV Held Patent-Ineligible

Patent claims directed to securing various aspects of digital content on a user’s television were held patent-ineligible in OpenTV, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 5:15-cv-02008-EJD (N.D. Cal., Jan. 28, 2016). Ruling on Apple’s motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the court used the familiar Alice / Mayo two-step framework to invalidate claims […]

Continue Reading

PTAB Denies Petition for CBM Review of Patent Directed to ATM Banking Transactions: a Portent for Patent-Eligibility of Business Methods? (Maybe Not)

The USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has denied a petition for Covered Business Method (CBM) Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,081,792, whose claims recite methods of “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, from an account […]

Continue Reading

Section 101 Analysis Under Alice Reaches Different Results in Different Texas Districts

Courts in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas have recently reached decisions that demonstrate the different results that different courts can reach when analyzing patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the wake of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. Summary judgement of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. 101 was denied on claims of U.S. 6,772,210 […]

Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Demonstrates an Alice No-Brainer

In a one-word per curiam order two days after oral argument, the Federal Circuit affirmed, on grounds of patent-ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of a lawsuit alleging infringement of patent claims directed to game scoring and processing Internet transactions. Priceplay.com, Inc. v. AOL Advertising, Inc., Nos. 2015-1492, 2015-1589, 2015-1660 (Fed. Cir. […]

Continue Reading

Patent Claims Directed to Providing an Intermediary Server in a Computer Network Survive Alice Scrutiny

For an example of a patent claim that survived a district court’s application of the Alice/Mayo patent-eligibility test, see independent claim 24 of US Patent No. 6,928,479. 01 Communique Laboratory, Inc. v. Citrix Systems, Inc., No. 1:06-cv-253 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 21, 2015.)  In this case, the court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment of […]

Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Demonstrates There Are Easy Cases under the Alice/Mayo Patent-Eligibility Test

The Federal Circuit has held patent-ineligible claims drawn to “the abstract idea of testing operators of any kind of moving equipment for any kind of physical or mental impairment.” Vehicle Intelligence and Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC, No. 2015-1411 (Fed. Cir., Dec. 28, 2015) (per curiam). If you read independent claims 8 and 16 […]

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

USPTO Notice of Allowance Post-Alice Does Not Prevent Finding of Patent-Ineligibility in District Court

In holding claims directed to a computer search system patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Delaware Magistrate Judge Thynge rejected an argument that the patent should survive Alice scrutiny because a very similar continuation application had been allowed after Alice, and after invalidity contentions were submitted to the USPTO in the continuation application. Collarity, Inc. […]

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes