Category Archives: Software

Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.

Docket Nos. 2016-2442 WALLACH, CHEN, STOLL December 8, 2017 Brief summary: DC grant of attorney’s fees under § 285 for post-Alice decision conduct affirmed (“[i]t was IH’s responsibility to reassess its case in view of new controlling law”). Summary: IH … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees, Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Intellectual Ventures I and II LLC v. Erie Indemnity Company et al.

Docket No. 2017-1147 PROST, REYNA, WALLACH November 3, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC finding of § 101 ineligibility affirmed because first two claimed steps could be performed by humans while third step third step of “‘recognizing certain data’…without regard to … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Smart Systems Innovations, LLC (“SSI”) v. Chicago Transit Authority, et al. (“CTA”)

Docket No. 2016-1233 REYNA, LINN (D), WALLACH October 18, 2017 Brief summary: DC finding that SSI’s claims are ineligible under § 101 affirmed (e.g., not directed to “a new type of bankcard, turnstile, or database”). Summary: SSI appealed DC finding … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-1728 PROST, CLEVENGER, REYNA October 16, 2017 Brief summary: DC grant of UW’s motion to dismiss because SM’s patents are patent-ineligible under § 101 affirmed ((e.g., “not directed to an improvement in computer functionality” (Alice step one) and … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., et al.

Docket No. 2016-1499 LOURIE, REYNA, STOLL April 28, 2017 Brief Summary: DC decision that RC’s claims are ineligible under § 101 affirmed (e.g., “[a]dding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Trading Technologies Int., Inc. v. CQG, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2016-1616 LOURIE, MOORE, O’MALLEY January 18, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC finding that claims to trading technology software is patentable subject matter affirmed. Summary: CQG appealed DC decision that US 6,772,132 and 6,766,304 relating to “a method for … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Alfred E. Mann Foundation et al. (“AEM”) v. Cochlear Corporation et al.

Docket No. 2015-1580, -1606, -1607 NEWMAN, CHEN, HUGHES November 17, 2016 Brief Summary: DC decision of indefiniteness of certain claims for failure to disclosure an algorithm affirmed; another found supported by “adequate defining structure”. Finding of no willfulness vacated and … Continue reading

Posted in Indefiniteness, Means-plus-function, Software, Willfullness | Leave a comment