Category Archives: Section 101 (see also Patentability)

DC ineligibility findings for computer-related claims affirmed-in-part and reversed-in part as some showed improvement of “a problem unique to the Internet”

Posted on October 25, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Shalon Weisner and Shmuel Nemanov v. Google LLC Docket No. 2021-2228 (IPR2020-00040) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2228.OPINION.10-13-2022_2017814.pdf) REYNA, HUGHES, STOLL October 13, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC decisions on patent ineligibility claims affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part as two of the patents arguably “recite a specific … Continue reading →

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

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

Posted on July 21, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on October 27, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

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”

Posted on March 15, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on February 15, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Induced infringement decision reversed (“subjective bad faith”); eligibility decision affirmed (“improving a basic function of a computer”)

Posted on October 27, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

TecSec, Inc. v. Adobe Inc., et al. Docket No. 2019-2192, -2258 PROST, REYNA, TARANTO October 23, 2020 Brief Summary:  DC incorrectly excluded evidence of induced infringement (“subjective bad faith”) but correctly found patent eligibility (“directed to improving a basic function … Continue reading →

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

Patent ineligibility decision affirmed as claims “recite no technological solution”

Posted on June 25, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Dropbox, Inc. et al. v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. Docket No. 2019-1765, -1767, -1823 PROST, WALLACH, HUGHES June 19, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC holdings of patent ineligibility affirmed as claims did not, e.g., “describe how to solve the problem in … Continue reading →

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

DC ineligibility decision reversed as claims are directed to a (“patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality”

Posted on May 4, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. LG Electronics USA, Inc. et al. Docket No. 2019-1835 MOORE, REYNA, TARANTO April 30, 2020 Brief Summary: DC decision of patent ineligibility under § 101 for being abstract (Alice, step one) reversed and remanded … Continue reading →

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

Method of manufacturing claims ineligible under § 101 since “the mechanism for achieving the desired result” involving a natural law “are not actually claimed”

Posted on October 9, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, et al. Docket No. 2018-1763 NEWMAN, TARANTO, STOLL October 3, 2019 Brief Summary: DC holding that AAM’s “method for manufacturing” claims are patent ineligible under § 101 affirmed (e.g., “the mechanism … Continue reading →

Posted in Patentability, Section 101 (see also Patentability), Uncategorized | Leave a comment