After the Federal Circuit’s August 1, 2016, decision in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., a defendant sought reconsideration of a Rule 12 motion to dismiss based on alleged patent-ineligibility of claims directed to “machine-to-machine communication platforms designed for tracking and monitoring the location and status of widely dispersed fleet vehicles and related mobile assets.” […]
Archive | Software Patents
Under Alice, Some Patent-Ineligibility Determinations Are Routine
Here is a patent claim concerning which the Federal Circuit, without comment, agreed was not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the Alice test: A method for monitoring and analyzing at least one signal comprising: receiving at least one reference signal to be monitored; creating an abstract of said at least one reference signal […]
Claims Reciting Mental Steps Are Not Patent-Eligible, Says Federal Circuit
In an opinion authored by Judge Chen (joined by Judges Lourie and Moore), the Federal Circuit held claims of three patents to be patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because “they are directed to the abstract idea of translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit.” […]
Another Business Method Patent Falls at the Federal Circuit
A district court properly found that patent claims reciting “detecting improper access of a patient’s protected health information (PHI) in a computer environment” were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Fairwarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., No 2015-1985 (Fed. Cir., Oct. 11, 2016 (opinion by Judge Stoll, joined by Judges Lourie […]
Patent Claims Found to be Directed to Abstract Idea, but Pass Alice’s “Inventive Concept” Prong
Having found that patent claims were directed to abstract ideas under the first prong of the Alice/Mayo test, a court then found that the claims were patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims recited an inventive concept, satisfying the second prong of the Alice/Mayo test. The court thus denied the defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) […]
Three-Judge Fed. Cir. Panel Shows How Patent-Eligibility Law Is All Over the Map
A split Federal Circuit panel (Judges Dyk, Mayer, and Stoll) affirmed a district court’s holding that two Intellectual Ventures software patents were patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, while reversing the lower court’s holding that a third patent claimed eligible subject matter under the Mayo/Alice Section 101 test. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., […]
What Is a Party’s Burden in Seeking a Determination of Patent-Ineligibility?
A court denied a patent infringement defendant’s motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6); the defendant, alleging that four patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for failing to recite patent-eligible matter, failed in its burden of stating a representative claim. JSDQ Mesh Technologies LLC v. Fluidmesh Networks, No. 1-16-cv-00212 (D. Del. Sept. 6, 2016). The […]
Patent Claims to Cellular Network Messaging Survive Summary Judgment
Case: Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v. Sprint Communications Company L.P., No. 12-859 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 24, 2016). Result: Summary judgment of patent-ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 denied (in the course of deciding a myriad of summary judgment motions). Patents: U.S. Patent No. 6,885,870 (“Transferring of a message”). Claim 1 recites: A method […]
Claims to Software for Automating Manual Tasks Are Patent-Eligible, Says Federal Circuit
After characterizing the patents as “[e]ssentially . . . aim[ing] to automate a 3-D animator’s tasks,” the Federal Circuit held that claims of patents entitled “Method for automatically animating lip synchronization and facial expression of animated characters” are patent-eligible. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016). The Federal Circuit […]
A Federal Circuit Reminder on the Limits of Obviousness
The circumstances are few in which “common sense” can substitute for a claim limitation missing from the prior art in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Federal Circuit explained in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc., No. 2015-2073 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2016) (opinion by Judge O’Malley, joined by Judges Linn and Moore). […]