Website Doesn’t Create Personal Jurisdiction in Patent Case

An Ohio court has transferred a patent case to the Eastern District of Washington after finding that the defendant’s website was insufficient to create specific personal jurisdiction.  Zen Indus., Inc. v. Hoffman Mfg., Inc., No. 1:16 CV 2352 (N.D. Ohio, Feb. 9, 2016).  Applying Federal Circuit law to consider personal jurisdiction with respect to the […]

Continue Reading

Fitbit Survives 12(b)(6) Motion Attacking Patent-Eligibility

Fitbit sued Jawbone, its rival, alleging infringement of three patents directed to preparing wearable activity trackers with client and/or server computers, whereupon Jawbone unsuccessfully brought a Rule 12 motion to dismiss alleging patent-ineligible subject matter. Fitbit, Inc. v. AliphCom, No. 15-cv-04073-EJD (N.D. Cal. Feb 9, 2017.)  The asserted patents were U.S. Patent Nos. 9,026,053, 9,106,307, […]

Continue Reading

Fed. Cir. Affirms Command and Control Patent-Ineligibility

In a one-line per curiam Rule 36 judgment, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s judgment on the pleadings that claims of patents directed to “command-and-control processing” recited ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Appistry Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 2015-2077 (Fed. Cir. Feb 10, 2017) (Judges Lourie, Hughes, and Stoll).  The patents at […]

Continue Reading

Article-Tracking Held Patent-Ineligible Abstract Idea

Patent claims drawn to determining if articles are in a specified geographic area, and then taking an action based on the determination, are not eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l.  CalAmp Wireless Networks Corporation v. ORBCOMM, Inc., No. 3:16cv906-HEH (E.D. Va. Feb 9, 2017.) Accordingly, the […]

Continue Reading

PTAB Rejects Secondary Considerations for Patentability

Even though there was no dispute that a commercially successful product encompassed challenged patent claims, the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board held that a patent owner failed to show secondary considerations of non-obviousness.  Arctic Cat, Inc. v. Polaris Industries, Inc., Case IPR2015-01781; Patent 8,827,028 B2 (PTAB Jan. 30 2017).  The Patent Owner, the PTAB […]

Continue Reading

Detail Counts to Support Patent Damage Analysis

In Yodlee v. Plaid Technology, No. 14-1445-LPS-CJB (D. Del. 2017), Judge Leonard Stark gave guidance on the boundaries of an admissible opinion for a reasonable royalty analysis in a patent case.  Yodlee v. Plaid involves a patent relating to a method and apparatus for gathering summary information from websites and presenting that information as HyperText […]

Continue Reading

Willful Patent Infringement as Pled Need Not Be Egregious

While enhanced damages for willful patent infringement may be based on egregious misconduct, a plaintiff can support a pleading of willful infringement by alleging the defendant’s intent, and without a necessarily pleading facts amounting to egregious misconduct.  Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., No. 1-16-cv-00358 (D Del. Jan 31, 2017).  Thus, the plaintiff […]

Continue Reading

The Plain Meaning of a Covenant Not to Sue

How can you draft a covenant not to sue for patent infringement without agreeing to restrictions that will prevent you from enforcing your patent rights against some unknown party in the future? In Securus Technologies Inc. v. Global Tel*Link Corp., Nos. 2016-1470, 2016-1506 (Jan 26, 2017), the Federal Circuit held that the plain and ordinary […]

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes