B2 Intellectual Property Report

The Software IP Report

+

The Claims Interpreted Report

Automating Data Verification Ineligible under Section 101

Claims directed to automating employment verification data were held invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the Southern District of Indiana. Tenstreet, LLC v. DriverReach, LLC, No. 1:18-cv-03633 (S.D. Ind. Sep. 30, 2019). Pl… Read More

Patent Owner Loses under § 101 in CBM Where Claims Not Limited to Technological Innovation Allegedly Disclosed in Patent Specification

All claims of a patent directed to a “security-based order processing technique” are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101, said the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in a final written decision in a Covered Busines… Read More

On-Sale Bar: Patent Invalid over Defendant’s Sale of the Product

A district court ruled that the on-sale bar can be triggered by sales by third parties, even if the product is not delivered until after the critical date. In OneSubsea v. FMC, Civil Action No. H-18-2459 (Sept. 24, 2019)… Read More

Details Matter for Patent-Eligibility (and Other Bases for Patent Validity)

An important lesson for patent drafting – disclose and claim as much detail as you can about how the invention works, as opposed to simply what it does – falls out of a Federal Circuit panel’s split decision holdin… Read More

Limits on Obviousness - Beyond the Claim Elements

Here is a lesson on obviousness. The Federal Circuit agreed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that claims for a system to measure degradation of cooking oils in a deep fryer were non-obvious under 35 U.S.C. … Read More

“Circuit For” Interpreted as Means-Plus-Function

Even without the word “means,” claims can be interpreted as means-plus-function, as demonstrated by the Central District of California in a decision in Limestone Memory Systems v. Micron Technologies. The court inter… Read More

Failure to Disclose Sales Before Critical Date is Inequitable Conduct

Failure to disclose “material information of prior sales” resulted in a holding that U.S. Patent No. 8,146,428 “is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct” based on a finding of a “specific intent to deceive t… Read More

Online User Authentication Service Fails § 101 Patent-Eligibility Test

Claims of a patent directed to “an interaction between a user, an ASP [authentication service provider] client, and an ASP” were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the Mayo/Alice patent-eligibility test, said a North… Read More

Indefiniteness Challenges Hinge On Textual Support

Whether a court holds a patent claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C § 112 can depend on textual support in the body of the claim or in the patent specification. In Luminati Networks, Ltd. v. UAB Tesonet, no. 2:18-cv-299 (E.D… Read More

Death and Taxes and Patent-Ineligibility of Business Methods

For all the kvetching about the frustrating subjectivity and unpredictability of applying the Mayo/Alice patent-eligibility test, here is a case showing that there is a zone of certainty in determining patentability unde… Read More

Upcoming Webinar

Preparing and Prosecuting Functional Claims
October 23, 2019 at 12:00 pm EDT
There continues to be a dramatic impact on the interpretation of functional claim terms after the Federal Circuit decision in Williamson v. Citrix Online L.L.C. Since means-plus-function claiming can be utilized in almost every field of innovation, p…Register

Subscribe