Here is an example of how the abnegation of Form 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is changing patent litigation. In Mike Murphy’s Enters. v. Fineline Indus., LLC, No. 1:16-cv-784-LJO-SAB (E.D. Cal. Aug. 4 2016), the court granted a Rule12(b)(6) motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint alleging infringement of United States Patent No. […]
Alice Kills Streaming Video Sharing Patent Claims
Case: Videoshare LLC v. Google, Inc., No. 13-cv-990 (GMS) (D. Del. August 2, 2016). Result: Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 was granted. Patents: U.S. Patent No. 8,438,608 (“Sharing a streaming video”), and U.S. Patent No. 8,464,302 (“Method and system for sharing video with advertisements over […]
Federal Circuit Holds Coined Phrases to Be Means-Plus-Function, and Indefinite
In Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Inc., No. 2015-1732 (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2016), the Federal Circuit cautioned against coining verbal nouns and phrases without specifying sufficient structure or algorithms in the patent specification. The court affirmed a finding of indefiniteness of claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,031,728 and 7,672,681, and held the […]
Patent Claims to Analyzing and Using Power Grid Data Fail under Alice and Mayo
The Alice/Mayo 35 U.S.C. § 101 patent-eligibility test easily resulted in the invalidity of patent claims directed to “real-time performance monitoring of an electric power grid.” Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., No. 2015-1778 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1, 2016). Accordingly, a panel consisting of Judges Taranto (the opinion’s author), Bryson, and Stoll, affirmed a […]
Patent Claims to “Printed Circuit Board Configuration” Survive Alice Challenge
A Central District of California court denied a motion to dismiss claims of infringement of two patents directed to the arrangement of memory chips on a computer memory card, the defendant having alleged patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C . § 101. Polaris Innovations Ltd v. Kingston Technology Co., Inc., No. SACV 16-00300-CJC(RAOx) (C.D. Cal. […]
Federal Circuit Makes Patent-Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Even Murkier
Claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,987,606, directed to “content filtering information retrieved from an internet computer network,” recited an “inventive concept,” and therefore were patent-eligible as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 101. BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. ATT Mobility LLC., No. 2015-1763 (June 27, 2016). Judge Chen wrote for a majority […]
Objectively Reasonable Defenses Do Not Preclude Finding of Willful Patent Infringement
The Federal Circuit has held that even if an accused infringer’s defenses to patent infringement are objectively reasonable, Supreme Court precedent does not preclude a willful infringement finding, or enhancing damages. WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., Nos. 2015-1038, 2915-1044 (Fed. Cir. July 19, 2016). In WBIP, the district court decided the willful infringement question under […]
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 […]
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 […]
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., […]