No Intent to Deceive, No Inequitable Conduct

The Federal Circuit has reversed a finding of inequitable conduct where “the record contains no evidence of a deliberate decision to withhold those references from the PTO as required under Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.”  1st Media, LLC v. Electronic Arts, Inc., No. 2010-1435 (Fed. Cir. Dec; 13, 2012).  The opinion was authored […]

Read full story

E-Commerce Patent Claims Held Not Patent-Eligible

Patent claims directed to “automated testing and selection of prices for goods and services sold online” have been held invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for failing to recite patent-eligible subject matter.  In Oip Techs. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. C-12-1233 EMC (N.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2012), the court granted Amazon’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Oip’s […]

Read full story

Software Means-Plus-Function Claims Held Indefinite

Software patent claims were held indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 where the patent specification failed to provide any algorithm for performing the recited function.  Ibormeith IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 10-5378 (D. N.J., Sept. 5, 2012).  The claims recited “computational means” and thus were means-plus-function claims within the ambit of 35 U.S.C. […]

Read full story

What is the Pleading Standard for Invalidity Counterclaims?

Bare-bones counterclaims alleging invalidity of patents-in-suit were held sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 8(a).  Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC v. J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc., No. 11 CV 9143 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 28, 2012).  J.C. Penney had pled six nearly identical invalidity counterclaims.  Helferich, the plaintiff, “argue[d] J.C. […]

Read full story

Inducement Does Not Require a Single Direct Infringer, Federal Circuit Now Says

Many owners of Internet patents must be rejoicing.  The Federal Circuit, in a 6-5 en banc decision, has overruled its precedent holding “that in order for a party to be liable for induced infringement, some other single entity must be liable for direct infringement.”  The Court explained “that all the steps of a claimed method […]

Read full story

4th Circuit Adopts Narrow Construction of CFAA

Does an employee act “without authorization” or “exceed authorized access” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 USC § 1030, by accessing  computers with a username and password provided by an employer, albeit in a manner against the employer’s policies and/or interests?  The Fourth Circuit has joined other courts taking a narrow view of […]

Read full story

Are Webpages “Published” Under U.S. Copyright Law?

Allegedly infringed webpages were held not to be “publications” under U.S. copyright law.  Rogers v. The Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston, Inc., No. H-10-3741 (Aug. 15, 2012).  The plaintiff had described the webpages as unpublished when applying for copyright registrations.  The defendant argued that the webpages were published, and that the copyright registrations were […]

Read full story

Telephone Transaction Data Claims Not Patent-Eligible

Claims directed to storing transaction data captured via a telephone are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, says a Delaware District Court.  Cyberfone Sys. LLC v. Cellco Partnership, Civ. Nos. 11-827-SLR, 11-829-SLR, 11-831-SLR (D. Del. Aug. 16, 2012).  Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment of invalidity in favor of the defendants concerning U.S. Patent No. […]

Read full story

Functional Language Renders Claims Indefinite

Patent claims broadly reciting functions of a “controller” are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, according to the court in Markem-Imaje Corp. v. Zipher, Ltd., Civil No. 07-cv-00006-PB (D. N.H. Aug. 9, 2012).  The court therefore granted accused infringer Markem’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity. A representative patent claim recited a tape […]

Read full story

The America Invents Act for Non-Patent Lawyers

The America Invents Act, as every patent lawyer knows, makes significant changes to the practice of patent law in the United States.  Especially if you are not a patent lawyer, you may find helpful my recent article,  “Some Basics of the America Invents Act for Non-Patent Lawyers,” published in the August 2012 issue of the […]

Read full story