How Does Patent-Eligibility Relate to Novelty and Non-obviousness?

Is prior art relevant to determining patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, or isn’t it?  In finding, on a motion for summary judgment, that claims drawn to “presenting information on a space-constrained display o… Read More

Patent-Eligibility Under Alice Is Best Understood by Example

Forget about whether you are a software patent lover or hater.  To me, the worst thing about the current mess in the law of patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is that practitioners are left unable to counsel our clients wi… Read More

Technological Environment Will Not Save Patent-Eligibility Under Alice

A recent decision under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by Judge Robinson of the District of Delaware is notable for two things: (1) the invalidation of patent claims drawn to a technological environment, and (2) the frank acknowledgment of the… Read More

Is "Software Per Se" Not Patent-Eligible?

A recent decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has sustained an Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 with the sole explanation that the rejected claim was “drawn to software per se.” In re P… Read More

Data Management Claims Held Patent-Ineligible

A court granted a motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6) where claim construction was not needed to determine that claims of three patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on the two-part Alice / Mayo patent-eligibility te… Read More