PTAB Invalidates Business Method Claims in CBM Review

Inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review proceedings conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office are emerging as a potent tool for invalidating patents. Under the Covered Business Method (CBM) PG-Review available to accused infringers, the PTAB can invalidate patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § […]

Read full story

Goodbye to Form 18?

Form 18 appended to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides a form complaint for pleading patent infringement. To the chagrin of many defendants, Form 18 has been used to justify very bare-bones complaints of patent infringement even after the Supreme Court’s Iqbal and Twombley decisions requiring more detailed pleading. Now Form 18 may be […]

Read full story

Covered Business Method Patent Found Likely Patent-Eligible Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office has arguably held that business method patent claims may be patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In PNC Bank v. Secure Axcess, LLC, Case CBM2014-00100 (PTAB Sept. 9, 2014), the PTAB held that U.S. Patent No. 7,631,191 was eligible for […]

Read full story

Already Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Has Brought a Sea-Change in Patent-(In)eligibility

In the four years leading up to Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in Bilski v. Kappos and Mayo v. Prometheus.  Both decisions clearly cut back on the anything-goes approach to determining patent-eligible subject matter […]

Read full story

PTAB Reverses Obviousness Rejection because Nothing “Ties” Approaches of Prior Art References Together

In Ex parte Gilbert (Appeal 2012/005795; App. No. 11/200,749), the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (PTAB) held that the Examiner had not established that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had an apparent reason to combine the references because there is nothing that would “tie” the approaches of the references together. The […]

Read full story

Another Post-Alice Nail in the Coffin of Business Method Patents

In a case where the patent-owner had no chance following Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the Federal Circuit has affirmed a district court’s pre-Alice holding that patent claims directed to “providing a guaranty service for online transactions” are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Buysafe, Inc. […]

Read full story

Use of Copyrighted Software’s Output and Mere Downloading of Copy Held Not to Constitute Infringement

Neither using output from copyrighted software, nor downloading (but not installing or using) the copyrighted software, constituted actionable copyright infringement under the US copyright statute.  Design Data Corporation v.  Unigate Enterprise, Inc., No. 12-cv-04131-WHO (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2014).  Accordingly, the court in this case granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the […]

Read full story

Trade Secret Protection Requires Steps to Protect Trade Secrets

A defendant who misappropriated a plaintiff’s designs could not be liable for trade secret misappropriation no matter how nefarious the defendant’s conduct, where the plaintiff had not taken reasonable steps to protect prototypes embodying the designs. Accordingly, in Direct Technologies, LLC v. Electronic Arts, Inc., No. SACV 10-1336 AG (PJWx) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2014), […]

Read full story

Precedential PTAB Decision Provides Reminder That PG Patent Review Is Barred By Prior Civil Action Challenging Validity

On November 15, 2013, SecureBuy, LLC, petitioned the US Patent and Trademark Office for review of U.S. Patent No. 7,051,002 under the America Invents Act’s transitional program for covered business method patents. Two weeks earlier, on November 1, 2014, SecureBuy had filed actions in two different federal district courts seeking a declaratory judgment of invalidity […]

Read full story

Patent “Assignee” Lacks Standing to Sue

Clouding IP lacked standing to sue to enforce a set of patents it had purportedly purchased under a “Patent Assignment Agreement” because rights retained by Symantec, the seller, prevented Clouding from obtaining “substantially all rights” in the patents.  Clouding IP LLC v. AT&T Inc., No. 1:13-cv-01342 (D. Del. Jul 28, 2014). The Court’s consideration of […]

Read full story