Knowledge Not Enough for Induced Patent Infringement

A retailer’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a claim of induced patent infringement has been granted where the only allegation of intent to induce infringement rested on the retailer’s alleged knowledge that the product’s user manual instructed customers to perform infringing acts.  Tierra Intelectual Borinquen, Inc. v. ASUS Computer Int’l, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-38-JRG (E.D. Texas […]

Read full story

Is Section 101 Patent Eligibility Determined By Claim Breadth?

A Federal Circuit panel has held invalid, for not reciting patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, patent claims directed to separating telephone transaction data into component parts, and storing it at different destinations.  CyberFone Sys., LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., Nos. 2012-1673, 2012-1674 (Fed. Cir., Feb. 26, 2014).  An opinion authored by […]

Read full story

Common Meaning Given to Claim Language Using Terms of Art

A question of infringement turned on the meaning of “gateway” in the phrase “intelligent gateway” in a patent claim.  The Federal Circuit agreed that a district court was entitled to consult technical dictionaries and use commonly understood meanings of the word to construe the claim.  Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court’s claim construction, and […]

Read full story

Patent-Eligibility Ruling on Data Encryption Claims

In an opinion authored by Federal Circuit Senior Judge Bryson, an Eastern District of Texas court has denied a motion for summary judgment that patent claims directed to a method for transmitting encrypted data are ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  TQP Development, LLC. v. Intuit, Inc., N0. 2:12-CV-180-WCB (E.D. Texas Feb. […]

Read full story

Third Party Affirmative Defenses to Software Copyright Infringement

A license, either express or implied, may be an affirmative defense to software copyright infringement.  However, a recent case, brought by Oracle against a vendor who had provided services to Oracle’s customer, illustrates the limits of these defenses.  Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini Street, Inc., No. 2:10-CV-00106-LRH-PAL (D. Nev. Feb 13, 2014).  Perhaps more importantly, […]

Read full story

Reasonable Steps Protect Software Trade Secrets

A software owner must take steps to preserve trade secrets in software, but those steps need only be reasonable, rather than including every conceivable action.  That is the lesson from PQ Labs, Inc. v. Qi, No. 12-0450 CW (N.D. Cal., Jan 29, 2014), denying the defendants summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim brought under the […]

Read full story

Federal Circuit Holds Medical Diagnostic Method Not Patent-Eligible

Patent claims directed to “guiding the selection of a treatment regimen for a patient with a known disease or medical condition” were held not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by a unanimous Federal Circuit panel.  SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories, S.A., No. 2013-1186 (Jan. 24, 2014). All claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,081,786 […]

Read full story

Does a “Covered Business Method” Patent Review Warrant a Stay of Litigation?

A court in the Eastern District of Texas has declined to stay litigation where the United States Patent and Trademark Office is conducting a “Covered Business Method” review of the patent-in-suit under Section 18 of the America Invents Act.  VirtualAgility, Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-00011-JRG (E.D. Texas Jan. 9, 2014). The court […]

Read full story

When Is a Document Publicly Available (and Therefore Prior Art)?

A document can qualify as “prior art” under 35 U.S.C. § 102 even when the document is what one might charitably describe as barely publicly available, and even when the document is incomplete. In re Enhanced Security Research LLC, No. 2013-1114 (Fed. Cir. Jan 13, 2014).  In this case, a divided Federal Circuit panel upheld […]

Read full story

When are Hardware AND Software Required to Infringe Patent Claims?

A district court properly construed patent claims as requiring both hardware and software, and properly granted summary judgment of non-infringement where the defendants’ products used  potentially infringing hardware, but did not license or use software that would have been necessary to complete the infringement.  Nazomi Communications, Inc. v. Nokia Corp., No. 2013-1165 (Fed. Cir. Jan. […]

Read full story