B2 Intellectual Property Report

The Software IP Report

+

The Claims Interpreted Report

Reasonable Patent Royalties Require Proper Apportionment

Damages for patent infringement must be apportioned to the infringing features of an accused product and supported by substantial evidence. Finjan, Inc., v. Blue Coat Systems Inc., No. 2016-2520 (January 10, 2018) (prece… Read More

CAPTCHA Patent Claims Survive Alice Challenge

Patent claims directed to “generating a completely automated test to tell computers and humans apart” – i.e., improvements to what you’ve seen on the Internet as “CAPTCHA” – have survived a motion to dismis… Read More

“Substantially” in a Patent Claim is Substantially OK

U.S. Patent No. 5,987,863 (“the ‘863 patent”), owned by the Exmark Manufacturing Company (“Exmark”), recently survived a challenge to its claim 1 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶2 for inclusion of th… Read More

Fed. Cir. Holds Software Display Claims Patent-Eligible

Here is a Federal Circuit decision that expands the arsenal of cases available to argue for patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the Alice abstract idea test. In Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronic… Read More

Statutory Disclaimer Saves Remaining Claims from CBM

Using statutory disclaimer on some of the claims of its challenged patent, Realtime Data saved the remaining claims from scrutiny under covered business method review in response to a petition by Commvault. Commvault Sys… Read More

Neither Technical Terms Nor Length Save Claims under Alice

Patent claims directed to “buying and selling an item relating to unique subjects” were held patent-ineligible under the Alice abstract idea test and 35 USC § 101 in VOIT Technologies, LLC  v. Del-Ton, Inc., No. 5:… Read More

Addressing the Subjectivity of Patent-Eligibility Post-Alice

Perhaps the single most useful resource summarizing the law of patent-eligibility under the Alice abstract idea test is this chart of Federal Circuit cases under 35 U.S.C. § 101, found on the  USPTO’s very helpful we… Read More

Claim Terms “Substantially above” and “Significantly above” found Definite

The Court held, in Arctic Cat Inc., v. Polaris Industries Inc., No. 16-cv-0010 wmw, (MN Dec. 20, 2017), these terms, in the context of the specification and the prosecution history, gave sufficient guidance to a person s… Read More

MOU Overcomes Divided Patent Infringement

How do you find a direct infringer when no one party performs all steps of a method? In Travel Sentry, Inc. v. David A. Tropp, No. 2017-1025 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 19, 2017)(precedential) (Lourie, O’Malley, and Taranto presid… Read More

Lack of Inventive Support leads to Patent Ineligibility

E. District Court of Virginia grants summary judgment to Defendant Amazon finding claims of USRE46140 (reissue of U.S. Pat. No. 6,618,705) ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on a lack of support in the specification… Read More

Upcoming Webinar

Thomas Bejin of Bejin Bieneman PLC will discuss best practices for Ex Parte Patent Appeals.  Ex Parte Patent Appeals can be an effective tool to advance prosecution.  The webinar will begin with an overview of the Ex Parte Appeal process, including…Register

Subscribe