Category Archives: Patent Eligibility (101)

Board decision finding ineligibility under section 101 affirmed (abstract idea, generic computer)

In Re:  Jeffrey A. Killian Docket No. 2021-2113 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2113.OPINION.8-23-2022_1994643.pdf) TARANTO, CLEVENGER, CHEN August 23, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board decision finding claims ineligible under section 101 affirmed. Summary:  Mr. Killian appealed USPTO Board decision affirming the examiner’s rejection of certain … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

DC finding of Stanford’s organ rejection detection claims ineligible under section 101 affirmed

CareDx, Inc. (Stanford Univ.) v. Natera, Inc. and Eurofins Viracor, Inc. Docket Nos. 2022-1027-8 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1027.OPINION.7-18-2022_1979207.pdf) LOURIE, BRYSON, HUGHES July 18, 2022 Brief Summary:   Stanford’s claims to detecting organ rejection found ineligible under section 101 (e.g., “applying standard techniques in … Continue reading

Posted in Method claims, Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Section 101 (see also Patentability) | Leave a comment

DC section 101 ineligibility decision reversed as “the particular arrangement of steps in claim 1 provides a technical improvement” over conventional methods

CosmoKey Solutions Gmbh & Co. KG v. Duo Security LLC et al. Docket No. 2020-2043 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2043.OPINION.10-4-2021_1843694.pdf) O’MALLEY, REYNA, STOLL October 4, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC decision finding CosmoKey’s claims unpatentable under section 101 reversed (e.g., “the particular arrangement of steps … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Section 101 (see also Patentability), Software | Leave a comment

Digital camera device claims affirmed as patent ineligible under section 101

Yanbin Yu, et al. v. Apple Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. Docket No. 2020-1760 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1760.OPINION.6-11-2021_1789244.pdf) NEWMAN, PROST, TARANTO June 11, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC finding that claims to “improved digital camera” are patent ineligibile (101) affirmed (“whether a … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability | Leave a comment

Patent eligibility decision reversed (“claims do not at all describe how that result is achieved”) and claim construction affirmed based on specification

First Stream Media Corp. (“Samba”) v. Alphonso Inc. et al. Docket No. 2019-1506, -2133 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-1506.OPINION.5-11-2021_1776030.pdf) DYK, REYNA, HUGHES May 11, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC eligibility (101) decision reversed (“claims do not at all describe how that result is achieved”); claim … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Patent Eligibility (101), Software | Leave a comment

Rejection of Stanford’s genotyping claims affirmed as patent ineligible under section 101

In re:  Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Docket No. 2020-1288 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1288.OPINION.3-25-2021_1753695.pdf) PROST, LOURIE, REYNA March 25, 2021 Brief Summary:  PTAB decision of ineligibility under section 101 of second Stanford patent application affirmed (“patent ineligible abstract ideas … Continue reading

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Rejection of Stanford’s diagnostic claims affirmed as “mental steps… not integrated into a practical application”, not including a “specific method of treatment for specific patients using a specific compound at specific doses to achieve a specific outcome”

In Re:  Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Docket No. 2020-1012 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1012.OPINION.3-11-2021_1746411.pdf) PROST, LOURIE, REYNA March 11, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board decision finding Stanford’s diagnostic claims ineligible (“mental steps… not integrated into a practical application”, no “specific … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Section 101 (see also Patentability), Software | Leave a comment

DC claim construction and indefiniteness findings affirmed; ineligibility conclusions not reached by FC panel

Synchronoss Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc., Funambol, Inc. Docket No. 2020-2196, -2199 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-2196.OPINION.2-12-2021_1732513.pdf) PROST, REYNA, TARANTO February 12, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC claim construction, invalidity for indefiniteness, and grant of SJ affirmed. Summary:  Synchronoss appealed DC claim constructions and grant … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Indefiniteness, Means-plus-function, Patent Eligibility (101), Section 101 (see also Patentability), Software | Leave a comment

Board IPR FWD finding Sanofi’s amended claims not unpatentable affirmed

Mylan Laboratories Limited v. Aventis Pharma S.A. Docket No. 2020-1302 (IPR2016-00712) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1302.RULE_36_JUDGMENT.1-15-2021_1718184.pdf) NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, WALLACH January 15, 2020 Brief Summary:  FC panel affirmed Board IPR FWD finding Sanofi’s amended claims not to be unpatentable for obviousness, public use and section … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Obviousness, Patent Eligibility (101), Public Use | Leave a comment

DC ineligibility decision erroneous as claims not “solely directed to the printed matter”

C. R. Bard, et al. v. AngioDynamics, Inc. Docket No. 2019-1756, -1934 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-1756.OPINION.11-10-2020_1683097.pdf) REYNA, SCHALL, STOLL November 10, 2020 Brief Summary:  DC erroneously granted JMOL based on expert mistake and conclusion that printed matter made claims patent ineligible under section … Continue reading

Posted in Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability | Leave a comment