Lessons of Yu v. Apple: The Law of § 101 Patent-Eligibility Is Chaos

Here is a case that both demonstrates the dysfunction of U.S. patent law with respect to eligible subject matter under  35 U.S.C. § 101, and offers lessons for practitioners wishing to buttress the patent-eligibility of their cl… Read More

Internet Data Backup Not Patent-Eligible under § 101: WhitServe LLC v. DropBox, Inc.

Patent claims directed to backing up data to a client’s computers where the data has been outsourced for processing via the Internet failed the patent-eligibility test under the Alice/Mayo test and 35 U.S.C. § 101. WhitServe L… Read More

Automated Crop Growing and Monitoring Patents Pass Alice Test: Vineyard Investigations v. E. & J. Gallo Winery

In denying a motion to dismiss for lack of patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a court determined that U.S. Patents 8,528,834 and 6,947,810, relating to using sensors and data for growing and automated monitorin… Read More

References Still “Printed Publications” and Publicly Accessible under § 102 on a Poorly Designed Website

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit upheld the decision of the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that documents presented at an industry task force meeting and later made available on the task force website… Read More

NantWorks, LLC v. Niantic, Inc.: Reconciling Transactions Between Players of an Online Video Game is not Patent-Eligible

In Nantworks v Niantic., the Northern District of California held that peer-to-peer online transaction reconciliation that uses a physical location of one of the participants is an abstract idea that is not patent-eligible subject… Read More