Your Garage Door Opener Is Not Patent-Eligible

Patent claims directed to a “movable barrier operator,” i.e., controlling a garage door, are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the Alice/Mayo test. Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co. Ltd., Nos.… Read More

Determining Patent-Eligibility Requires Claim Construction!(?)

In a decision that Judge Lourie in dissent described as “based on a claim construction issue that is little more than a mirage,” a Federal Circuit panel vacated and remanded a district court’s Rule 12(c) judgment on the plea… Read More

Organizing Security System Display Data Survives Patent-Eligibility Challenge

Proving that application of the Mayo/Alice patent-eligibility test remains unpredictable and inconsistent, patent claims directed to a security system that monitors “premises using a graphical floor plan” have survived a motio… Read More

Check Processing Claims Fail Alice Test at Federal Circuit

Patent claims directed to a “method for processing paper checks” are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the Mayo/Alice abstract idea test, the Federal Circuit held in Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., Nos. 2019, 1345, 2019-1460… Read More

No Technical Improvement Means No Patent-Eligibility

Here is a case illustrating a far from unusual scenario that also illustrates the morass of the current law of patent-eligibility under the Mayo/Alice test and 35 U.S.C. § 101. In NetSoc, LLC. v. Match Group, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-018… Read More

No CBM: Check Deposit Patent Claims Technological Invention

Patent claims reciting a “medium comprising computer-readable instructions for depositing a check” included a “technological invention,” and thus were not eligible for Covered Business Method (CBM) review, held the Patent… Read More

Lack of Technical Solution in Patent Claims Justifies CBM Review and Alice Ineligibility

Finding that claims of patents directed “to a graphical user interface (‘GUI’) for electronic trading” lacked a technical solution to a technical problem, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisi… Read More

Courts Don’t Follow the PTO’s § 101 Patent-Eligibility Guidance so Why Should You?

The Federal Circuit’s recent dicta in a non-precedential decision stating that it need not give deference to the USPTO’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 patent-eligibility guidance highlights the challenges faced by patent applicants. In Cle… Read More

Attorney Fees for Suing on Patent that “Looks Like Alice”

After dismissing a lawsuit alleging infringement of US Patent No. 9,569,755 (“Financial Management System”), Delaware’s Judge Richard Andrews has awarded attorney fees under Octane Fitness and 35 U.S.C. § 285, finding an e… Read More

PTAB: Derivatives Trading Patent Claim Passes Alice Test, Opinion Designated “Informative”

Here is a sign that the USPTO’s January, 2019, guidance on 35 U.S.C. § 101 and patent-eligibility may have an immediate and significant impact on USPTO rejections under the Mayo/Alice abstract idea test. The guidance became ef… Read More