Category Archives: Software

Trading Technologies Int., Inc. (“TT”) v. IBG LLC et al. (US as intervenor)

Docket No. 2017-2257, -2621, 2018-1063 CBM Nos. 2015-00179, 2016-00051, 2016-00032 MOORE, MAYER, LINN April 18, 2019 Brief summary: Board finding that TT’s patents are CBM eligible (e.g., claims are not “for technological inventions”) and patent ineligible (§ 101) affirmed. Summary: … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

University of Florida Res. Found., Inc. (UFRF) v. General Electric Co. et al.

Docket No. 2018-1284 PROST, MOORE, WALLACH February 26, 2019 Brief summary: UFRF found to have “waived sovereign immunity as to GE’s § 101 eligibility challenge”. DC grant of GE’s motion to dismiss based on its § 101 defense to infringement … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

In Re: Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V.

Docket No. 2017-2465 CHEN, MAYER, BRYSON December 28, 2018 Brief summary: Board decision affirming the rejection of certain claims relating to a method of playing a dice game under § 101 affirmed (“printed matter” (“the only arguably unconventional aspect”) “fall[s] … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Glasswall Solutions Ltd. et al. v. Clearswift Ltd.

Docket No. 2018-1407 LOURIE, LINN, TARANTO December 20, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC dismissal of suit for failure to state a claim (FRCP 12(b)(6)) after the asserted claims are invalid as patent ineligible abstract ideas under § 101 affirmed (e.g., … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc. et al.

Docket Nos. 2018-1404 DYK, WALLACH, TARANTO Nov. 16, 2018 Brief summary: DC grant of HTC’s motion to dismiss under § 101 reversed and remanded since “‘[t]he claimed method…specifically identifies how [a] functionality improvement is effectuated in an assertedly unexpected way” … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Data Engine Technologies LLC (“DET”) v. Google LLC

Docket No. 2017-1135 REYNA, BRYSON, STOLL October 9, 2018 Brief summary: DC finding certain of DET’s claim ineligible under § 101 affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part (e.g., claims “not abstract, but rather directed to a specific improved method for navigating through complex three-dimensional … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (“WARF”) v. Apple Inc.

Docket No. 2017-2265, -2380 PROST, BRYSON, O’MALLEY September 28, 2018 Brief summary: DC holding that Apple infringed WARF’s patent reversed. DC grant of SJ of no anticipation affirmed. Summary: Apple appealed DC holding that it infringed WARF’s US 5,781,752 (expired … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Infringement, Preamble, Software | Leave a comment