Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part IV: The Usefulness Paradox
- Teva Capitulates to Federal Trade Commission Coercion
- USPTO Issues Memoranda on Subject Matter Eligibility
- USPTO Revokes Guidance on AI-Assisted Inventorship, But Rules Remain Basically the Same
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part III: Eligible Independent Claims Can Have Ineligible Dependent Claims
about
Category: District Court
-
By Michael Borella — The storied case of American Axle v. Neapco Holdings has entered a new chapter — not the final chapter but the plot has thickened considerably. As a recap, Judge Stark, then of the District Court for the District of Delaware, found all asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,774,911 invalid under…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – On Friday, August 26th, Moderna Tx, Inc. and Moderna US, Inc. filed a complaint for patent infringement in Federal district court for the District of Massachusetts against Pfizer, Inc., BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, and BioNTech US, Inc. (A parallel suit was filed in Germany asserting Moderna's corresponding German patents.) There are…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — On May 23rd, U.S. District Court Judge James V. Selna of the Central District of California granted summary judgement to Defendant Sweegen, Inc. on its motion that Plaintiff Pure Circle USA Inc.'s claims in suit were invalid for reciting patent ineligible subject matter and for failing to satisfy the written…
-
Electronic Gaming Patents Found Invalid under § 101 By Joseph Herndon — In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston Division), Plaintiff Epic Tech, LLC (a seller of so-called "sweepstakes games") sued Defendants Fusion Skill, Inc. and Texas Wiz, LLC for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,589,423 and 8,545,315 with the…
-
By Michael Borella — There is an undercurrent in patent law these days that litigation favors the defendant. Rather than contending infringement of a few claims of one patent, plaintiffs are now advised to assert multiple claims across several patents. After 35 U.S.C. § 101 challenges, IPR filings, and summary judgment motions, plaintiffs are lucky…
-
Signal Processing Claims for Decrypting Encrypted Information Found Patent Eligible By James Korenchan — Last week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division ruled that Defendant Apple, Inc. (hereinafter "Apple") failed to show that claims related to signal processing are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Plaintiff Personalized Media…
-
By Donald Zuhn — Earlier this month, in Sherwin-Williams Co. v. PPG Industries, Inc., Special Master Henry M. Sneath issued a Report and Recommendation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania that a motion by Defendant PPG Industries, Inc. to partially exclude the opinions of Plaintiff Sherwin-Williams Co.'s expert witness should…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The written description requirement has had a twenty-five year renaissance, particularly in the chemical and biotechnology arts as a way of restricting claim scope to what an inventor has actually invented (see Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co. and "Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eli Lilly…
-
Claims for an Interactive 3D Virtual Environment Found Patent Ineligible By James Korenchan — In the field of computer gaming, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California recently granted Defendants' Rule 12 motion alleging that claims 1, 3, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 8,228,325 (the '325 Patent) are invalid as claiming…
-
Claims Directed to Capture and Output of Digital Content Held Patent Ineligible By James Korenchan — A few weeks ago, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted Defendants' Rule 12 motions in three different cases, each naming Pebble Tide LLC (hereinafter, "Pebble") as Plaintiff. The Defendants in the three cases were Arlo…
Patent Docs 