Category Archives: Software

Rejection of Stanford’s genotyping claims affirmed as patent ineligible under section 101

Posted on March 26, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

In re:  Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Docket No. 2020-1288 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1288.OPINION.3-25-2021_1753695.pdf) PROST, LOURIE, REYNA March 25, 2021 Brief Summary:  PTAB decision of ineligibility under section 101 of second Stanford patent application affirmed (“patent ineligible abstract ideas … Continue reading →

Posted in Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

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”

Posted on March 15, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

Posted on February 15, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

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

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