Judge Sue Robinson—the longest-serving judge in the District of Delaware, among the most popular patent venues in the nation—bucked the trend in patent-eligibility law. Recently, she issued three opinions in three cases addressing software-related patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Improved Search LLC v. AOL, Inc., Civ. No. 15-262-SLR (D. Del. Mar. 22, 2016); Intellectual Ventures […]
Archive | March, 2016
Claim Drawn to Automated Call Processing Survives Patent-Eligibility Challenge
Patent drafters are often advised, in the wake of Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l., to use technical-sounding language in their patent claims. Here is a case that both bears out that advice - and at the same time illustrates the vagaries of our current regime of patent-eligibility law. In Ronald A. Katz […]
Digital Messaging and Data Processing Patent Claims Survive Section 101/Alice Challenge
For the second day in a row, this blog focuses on a case upholding the patent-eligibility, under 35 U.S.C. § 101, of patent claims that recite processing and transmitting data. In Signal IP, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., No. 2-14-cv-02454 (CD Cal., March 22, 2016), the court upheld the patent-eligibility of claims of […]
Computer Modeling Breast Prosthesis Survives 12(b)(6) § 101 Challenge
A court has declined, at least for the moment, to hold patent-ineligible claims directed to making a computer model of a part, in this case, a breast prosthesis. ContourMed Inc. v. American Breast Care LP, No. 4-15-cv-02769 (TXSD March 17, 2016, Order) (Miller, J.). Although the claims do recite use of hardware (e.g., a “scanning […]
Continue Reading
Federal Circuit Revisits Secondary Considerations and Effect of Age of Cited References under Section 103
The Federal Circuit recently clarified the suitability of certain types of evidence in analyses of patentability under section 103. Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, No. 2014-1719 (Fed. Cir. February 11, 2016) (opinion by Judge Chen, joined by Judges Mayer and Stoll). One question was: must evidence of secondary considerations be considered by the United States […]
Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB Claim Construction as Unreasonably Broad
The Federal Circuit recently clarified that the “broadest reasonable interpretation” of claims construed in an inter partes review (“IPR”) must still be “reasonable.” In PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC, No. 2015-1564 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 22, 2016), the court vacated and remanded a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) […]
Intervening Rights Do Not Protect Accused Patent Infringer Despite Amendment During Reexamination
The Federal Circuit recently provided a refresher lesson about intervening rights, particularly about what sources of evidence the court may find persuasive, in Convolve, Inc. et al. v. Compaq Computer Corp. et al., No. 2014-1732 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2016). At least in this case, the court weighed evidence from the original examination of the […]
Patent Directed to “Data Security System for a Database” Qualifies for Covered Business Method Review at PTAB
In Square Inc v. Protegrity Corp., CBM2014-00182 (March 2, 2016), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) offered some insight as to when patent claims will be subject to covered business method (CBM) review. The patent at issue is US 8,402,281, titled “Data Security System for a Database.” Claim 33 was one of the illustrative […]
Claims to a New Method of Playing Blackjack Not Patent-Eligible, Says Federal Circuit
The Federal Circuit has affirmed the USPTO’s rejection of an applicant’s claims that it concluded “cover only the abstract idea of rules for playing a wagering game and use conventional steps of shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards.” In re Smith, No. 2015-1664 (Fed. Cir. March 10, 2016) (opinion by Judge Stoll, joined […]
When Is a Document on the Internet a “Printed Publication?”
Addressing an issue with which patent litigators and prosecutors alike regularly grapple, the Federal Circuit recently held that a graduate student’s report, provided on her personal web page, was not a “printed publication” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) (pre-America Invents Act). Blue Calypso, LLC. V. Groupon, Inc., Nos. 2015-1391, 2015-1393, 2015-1394 (Fed. Cir. March 1, […]