Category Archives: Software

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

Posted on March 11, 2020 by

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

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

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

DC’s motion to dismiss and attorney fees award vacated and remanded as Cellspin’s amended complaint alleged an inventive concept and issued patents are presumed valid and patent eligible

Posted on July 1, 2019 by

Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc. et al. (Moov, Nike, Fossil, Canon, GoPro, Panasonic, and JKI); Docket Nos. 2018-1817-26, -2178-84 (June 25, 2019) Brief Summary:  DC grant of Fitbit’s motion to dismiss for patent ineligibility under section 101 and the … Continue reading →

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

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

Posted on April 23, 2019 by

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.

Posted on February 28, 2019 by

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.

Posted on January 3, 2019 by

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