Category Archives: Software

SCOTUS’ 2020 Thryv decision “makes clear that the threshold determination” of CBM review eligibility “non-appealable under 35 U.S.C. 324(e)”

Posted on November 20, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Electric Co. Docket No. 2018-1635 (CBM2016-00095) O’MALLEY, REYNA, CHEN September 25, 2019 Update (11/17/20):  FC panel explained that SCOTUS’ 2020 Thryv decision “makes clear that the threshold determination that SIPCO’s ‘842 patent qualifies for CBM review … Continue reading →

Posted in Covered Business Method Reviews, Patent Eligibility (101), 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 v. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. Docket No. 2019-1765, -1767, -1823 PROST, WALLACH, HUGHES June 19, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC holdings of patent ineligibility affirmed as claims did not, e.g., “describe how to solve the problem in … Continue reading →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

Uniloc claim ineligible under § 101 as abstract, claim includes “no specific asserted improvements”

Posted on May 14, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC Docket No. 2019-2048 MOORE, O’MALLEY, TARANTO May 13, 2020 Non-Precedential Brief Summary: DC finding of patent ineligibility under § 101 affirmed (abstract idea since claim includes “no specific asserted improvements”). Summary: Uniloc appealed … Continue reading →

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), 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

Injunction, damages, infringement and invalidity decisions regarding Illumina’s fetal testing patents affirmed

Posted on April 28, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Verinata Health, Inc., Illumina, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., Roche Mol. Sys., Inc. Docket No. 22018-2198, -2303, -2305, -2306, -2317 REYNA, WALLACH, HUGHES April 24, 2020 (Non-precedential) Brief Summary: DC denial of injunction and damages, as well as its refusal … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Doctrine of equivalents, Enablement, Infringement, Software | Leave a comment

Patent ineligibility decision reversed and remanded as claim is “not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept”

Posted on April 22, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Cardionet, LLC et al. v. Infobionic, Inc. Docket No. 2019-1149 DYK, PLAGER, STOLL April 17, 2020 Brief Summary: DC patent ineligibility decision (section 101) reversed and remanded (“not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept”). Summary: … Continue reading →

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

Board CBM decisions of patent ineligibility affirmed (no improved computer functionality)

Posted on March 11, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Customedia Technologies, LLC v. Dish Network Corp. et al. Docket No. 2018-2239 (CBM2017-00023), 2019-1000 (CBM2017-00032) PROST, DYK, MOORE March 6, 2020 Brief Summary: PTAB CBM decisions of patent ineligibility under 101 affirmed (e.g., “computers are invoked merely as a tool”, … Continue reading →

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

DC section 101 ineligibility decision reversed since the “the claimed invention is also directed to a non-abstract improvement”

Posted on December 4, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Koninkijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto, et al. and LG Electronics, Inc. Docket Nos. 2018-1863-65 DYK, CHEN, STOLL November 15, 2019 Brief Summary: DC finding of invalidity under § 101 reversed (claims “employs a new way of generating check data”). Summary: … Continue reading →

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

DC decision that wireless communication claims are patent eligible under section 101 reversed

Posted on August 26, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co., et al. (“TTI”) Docket No. 2018-2103, -2228 LOURIE, O’MALLEY, CHEN August 21, 2019 Brief Summary: DC finding of no invalidity under section 101 reversed; anticipation finding affirmed. Summary: TTI appealed DC grant … Continue reading →

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