Category Archives: Section 101 (see also Patentability)

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

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

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”

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 v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. Docket No. 2019-1765, -1767, -1823 PROST, WALLACH, HUGHES June 19, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC holdings of patent ineligibility affirmed as claims did not, e.g., “describe how to solve the problem in … Continue reading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

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”

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