Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Reasons for the PTAB’s Priority Determination in Broad’s Favor (Perhaps)
- Mexico Publishes Amendments to Intellectual Property Law
- PTAB (Again) Awards Priority of Invention to Broad in Interference No. 106,115
- Argentina Repeals Pharmaceutical Patent Examination Guidelines
- USPTO Moves to Protect Design Rights for Digital Innovations
about
Category: District Court
-
Producing "digital labels" is Patent Eligible under § 101 By Joseph Herndon — On February 6, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division) issued a decision in a case captioned Gonzalez v. Infostream Group, Inc. (Case No. 2:14-cv-906-JRG-RSP). The patent friendly Eastern District Court in Texas denied a Motion…
-
Coupon Patent Easily Found Invalid under § 101 By Joseph Herndon — On January 12, 2016, the District Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion in a case captioned Motivation Innovations, LLC v. Petsmart, Inc. Plaintiff, Motivation Innovations, LLC, filed a patent infringement action against defendant Petsmart Inc. alleging infringement of U.S. Patent…
-
By Michael Borella — In February 2015, Advanced Marketing Systems (AMS) sued a number of defendants, alleging infringement of various claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,219,445, 8,370,199, and 8,538,805. The defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the case should be dismissed because the asserted claims are directed to non-statutory subject…
-
By Michael Borella — Voxathon sued Alpine, and a number of defendants that manufacture automobiles, for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,442,261. According to the Court, the patent "relates to computer-implemented systems and methods for transferring information efficiently." Specifically, claim 1 recites: A method for recovering calls using an attendant telephone set having a predetermined…
-
By Joseph Herndon — Genband US LLC sued Metaswitch for infringement of claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,210 ("the '210 Patent") and U.S. Patent No 7,047,561 ("the '561 Patent") in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall Division), each of which arguably includes software patent claims. On January 6, 2016, the…
-
By Michael Borella — The fallout from the Supreme Court's Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l case continues to reshape the landscape of patent-eligibility. Despite guidance from the USPTO, patentees still struggle with what exactly is patent-eligible under Alice. Federal Circuit jurisprudence has proven helpful in teaching what is not eligible, but has been less effective…
-
By Donald Zuhn — After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its ninth annual list of top patent stories. For 2015, we identified twenty stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe had (or are likely to have) the greatest impact on patent practitioners and…
-
By Michael Borella — As 2015 drew to a close, the toll of the Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l decision on software and business method patents became apparent. Post Alice, approximately 70% of all patents challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been invalidated in district courts, while the rate of § 101 rejections…
-
Generic Software Claims Found Ineligible under § 101 By Joseph Herndon — A common theme found in recent patent litigation is that software claims lacking detail are more likely to be found invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle issued an opinion on December…
-
Patent Eligibility Requires Consideration of the Claim as a Whole By Joseph Herndon — The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Eastern Division) issued an opinion on December 21, 2015 in the case captioned 01 Communique Laboratory, Inc. vs. Citrix Systems, Inc., et al. (case no. 1:06-cv-253) regarding patent eligibility under 35…
Patent Docs 