A plaintiff whose theory of patent infringement depended on reading the word “at” to mean “associated with” was not subject to sanctions for bringing suit, even though the court found “unconvincing” the “plaintiff’s advocacy of this unusual interpretation.” NorthMobileTech LLC v. Simon Property Group, Inc., No. 11-cv-287 (W.D. Wisc. March 27, 2012). The claims of […]
Registering Large Number of Domain Names Not by Itself Evidence of Bad Faith Cybersquatting
A trademark infringement defendant’s counterclaim under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), was dismissed where the sole basis for the counterclaim was the sheer number of domain names that the plaintiff had registered. Voice of the Arab World, Inc. v. MDTV Medical News Now, Inc., No. 09-11505 (D. Mass. March 29, […]
Computerized Method of Managing Financial Instruments Not Patent Eligible
Yet another district court has invalidated patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In Digitech Information Systems, Inc. v. BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, No. 6:10-cv-1373 (M.D. Fla. March 30, 3012), the court held that a “method for selecting leases to optimize an investment portfolio,” implemented in a computer, did not recite patentable subject matter […]
Therapeutic Treatment Regimen Not Patent Eligible Despite Computer Implementation
In a decision that was probably made easy by the Supreme Court’s recent Prometheus decision, a D.C. district court has invalidated, as patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, patent claims that recite using a computer to recommend a therapeutic treatment regimen. SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories, SA, No. 08-00642 (D. D.C. March 30, […]
Divided Infringement and Non-Infringement
By Charles Bieneman on March 29, 2012 in Divided and Joint Infringement, Litigation, Patent Infringement Contentions, Patentable Subject Matter, Software Patents
A patent claim for configuring a “satellite” credit card of a main credit card was not infringed directly by any defendant, nor was the claim directly infringed by any third party, and therefore it could not be indirectly infringed. Spendingmoney LLC v. American Express Co., No. 3:08cv1376 (D. Conn. March 27, 2012). The claim of […]
Notice Pleading Patent Infringement Requires Some Specificity
By Charles Bieneman on March 28, 2012 in Civil Procedure, Litigation, Notice Pleading Patent Infringement
Even after bringing suit against 33 parties just before the America Invents Act’s prohibition on joining unrelated defendants took effect, the notice pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure still required that a plaintiff identify specific ways in which infringement was alleged to take place. Select Retrieval, LLC v. American Apparel, LLC, No. 11cv2158 […]
Enforceability of a Forum Selection Clause in a Clickwrap Agreement
Here are two cases that provide a further reminder of the power of clickwrap agreements, and that a party offering a clickwrap agreement can avail itself of that power only by properly presenting essential clickwrap agreement terms. In Rassoli v. Intuit, Inc., Civil No. H-11-2827 (S.D. Tex. March 19, 2012), the court enforced a forum […]
Software Claims Held Patent Eligible
A Northern District of California court has rejected an argument that “a method of executing an instruction” was not patent eligible subject matter. Nazomi Communications, Inc. v. Samsung Telecommunications, Inc., No. C-10-05545 (N.D. Cal. March 21, 2012). The representative claim, reproduced below, recited a method by which a Java interpreter could more efficiently access byte […]
Inequitable Conduct After Therasense Does Not Always Require “But-for” Materiality
Even under the heightened “but-for” materiality standard for proving inequitable conduct in patent prosecution set forth by the Federal Circuit in Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc), a pleading would be sufficient that set forth “affirmative egregious misconduct, such as the filing of an unmistakably […]
How Far Do the DMCA’s Anti-circumvention Provisions Go?
Taking a practical “I-know-it-when-I see-it” approach, a Nevada court considered the applicability of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2), and other statutes, to mechanisms that allowed users to receive proprietary satellite programming for free. The court entered a preliminary injunction, and authorized impoundment of devices and codes used to access the […]