Category Archives: Software

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

BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., Rakuten Commerce, LLC

Docket No. 2017-1980 REYNA, WALLACH, HUGHES August 15, 2018 Brief summary: DC grant of SJ to BuySeasons because all of BSG’s asserted claims are invalid as ineligible under § 101 affirmed. Summary: BSG appealed DC holding that all asserted claims … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Software, Summary Judgment | Leave a comment

In Re: Facebook, Inc.

Docket No. 2017-2524 PROST, MOORE, STOLL August 14, 2018 Non-precedential Brief summary: PTAB decision affirming examiner’s rejection of Facebook’s claims for obviousness and anticipation reversed since prior art reference did satisfy the claim “rule requiring the image elements to be … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Obviousness, Software | Leave a comment

Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2016-2502, -2505, -06, -07 TARANTO, PLAGER (D), CHEN July 20, 2018 Brief summary: DC decision finding Interval’s claims patent ineligible under § 101 affirmed. Summary: Interval appealed DC decision that claims 15-18 of US 6,034,652 “fail to recite … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Carl M. Burnett v. Panasonic Corporation et al.

Docket No. 2018-1234 (Non-precedential) O’MALLEY, CLEVENGER, REYNA July 16, 2018 Brief summary: DC holding that Mr. Burnett’s claims are invalid for being directed to ineligible subject matter (§ 101) affirmed. Summary: Mr. Burnett appealed DC holding claims 1 and 9 … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment