Category Archives: Software

Board IPR decision finding MSFT did not show Uniloc’s claims obvious vacated and remanded

Posted on November 1, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Microsoft Corp. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC Docket No. 2021-2039 (IPR2020-00023) (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2039.OPINION.10-20-2022_2021742.pdf) (Non-Precedential) LOURIE, DYK, HUGHES October 20, 2022 Brief Summary:   Board decision finding claims not obvious vacated and remanded for lack of substantial evidence (contradictory conclusions, claimed steps do … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Method claims, Obviousness, Software | Leave a comment

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

ITC decision of non-infringement of functional/capability-type computer claims affirmed; decision as to expired patent found moot

Posted on September 13, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

INVT SPE LLC v. Int. Trade Commission (ITC), HTC America, Inc. et al. (Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-1903 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-1903.OPINION.8-31-2022_1997811.pdf) NEWMAN, TARANTO, CHEN August 31, 2022 Brief Summary:   ITC decision finding no infringement of functional computer claims affirmed; decision regarding expired … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Functional limitations, Importation, International Trade Commission, Method claims, Software | Leave a comment

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

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

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 denial of Thales’ motion to enjoin Philips’ ITC exclusion order as Thales did not show it was likely to suffer irreparable harm affirmed

Posted on July 27, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al. v. Thales DIS AIS USA LLC, et al. Docket No. 2021-2106 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-2106.OPINION.7-13-2022_1977322.pdf) MOORE, DYK, CHEN July 13, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC denial of Thales motion to enjoin Philips from seeking ITC exclusion order affirmed … Continue reading →

Posted in Infringement, International Trade Commission, Software | Leave a comment

Claim construction affirmed, Hulu’s SJ grant of noninfringement vacated and remanded; damages testimony exclusion affirmed

Posted on May 18, 2022 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC Docket No. 2021-1998 (https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/21-1998.OPINION.5-11-2022_1950301.pdf) PROST, MAYER, TARANTO May 11, 2022 Brief Summary:   DC claim construction affirmed but SJ grant of noninfringement vacated and remanded; exclusion of certain damages testimony affirmed. Summary:  Sound … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Damages, Disclaimers, Expert Testimony, Prosecution History Estoppel, Software | 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

IPR obviousness decisions reversed for new claim construction; algorithm not required for circuitry

Posted on July 29, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-1589-94 (IPR2018-01326-30, -01340) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1589.OPINION.7-27-2021_1810321.pdf) MOORE, REYNA, STOLL July 27, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board IPR obviousness decisions vacated and remanded as Qualcomm had no notice of change in claim construction; “algorithm … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Means-plus-function, Obviousness, Software | Leave a comment

DC claim construction and finding of noninfringement by Amazon et al. affirmed

Posted on June 10, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Amazon, et al. (multiple retailers) Docket No. 2020-1573, -1660 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1573.OPINION.6-3-2021_1785939.pdf) PROST, BRYSON, REYNA June 3, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC finding that Amazon et al. do not infringe SpeedTrack’s patent to computer file access systems affirmed (no claim … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Infringement, Software | 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

Posted on May 18, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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