“Program,” “UI Code,” Not Means-Plus-Function Terms

The Federal Circuit has held that claim terms “program” and “user interface code,” as used in the phrases “program that can operate the movement of the pointer” and “user interface code being configured to detect one… Read More

Controlling Subscription Entertainment Not Patent Eligible

Affirming a motion to dismiss, the Federal Circuit found claims from four patents, directed to “electronic means of increasing user control over subscription entertainment content,” patent-ineligible under the Mayo/Alice test… Read More

Providing Haptic Feedback Patent-eligible or Abstract Idea?

Claims from two out of three patents for providing haptic feedback to computer users survived a motion to dismiss based on a patent eligibility challenge under the Mayo/Alice test and 35 U.S.C. § 101. Considering their character… Read More

Distribution Agreement held to be “Offer for Sale”

The Federal Circuit held a distribution agreement including transfer of title to the distributor and exclusivity in the United States for three years to be an “offer for sale” under the on-sale bar. In The Medicines Company v.… 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 skilled in… Read More

Virus-scanning Software Claims Held Patent-Ineligible

Patent claims to computer-virus scanning software included no language representing an improvement in computer function and were therefore patent-ineligible under 35 USC § 101. On this basis, the court in Glasswall Solutions Limi… Read More

Judge Gilstrap Invalidates Imaging Patent Claims under Alice

 In Image Processing Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., et al., (E. D. Texas, October 24, 2017) Judge Gilstrap applied the two-step Alice patent-eligibility analysis and granted Samsung’s Motion for Partial Summary J… Read More

Preview-Based File Sharing Claims Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. §101

In TS Patents LLC v. Yahoo! Inc., No. 17-cv-01721-lhk, (CAND Sept. 1, 2017) the Court applied the two-step Alice analysis and granted Yahoo’s motion to dismiss an infringement suit from TS Patents, finding claims from four asser… Read More

Defendant Controlled Information Not Required in Pleadings

Does the fact that relevant information is “arguably within [the defendant’s] sole possession” affect the plaintiff’s burden in pleading a claim for patent infringement?  In Prowire, LLC v. Apple, Inc. , the United States… Read More

“Virtually Free From Interference” Not Indefinite Claim Term

In a precedential and split decision, the Federal Circuit reversed the International Trade Commission and found patent claims reciting the term “virtually free from interference” not indefinite. One-E-Way, Inc., v. Internation… Read More

Upcoming Webinar

Functional Claiming: Pitfalls and How To’s
October 18, 2018 at 12:00 pm EDT
Recent decisions under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 112, and 103 come into focus when viewed through a common lens. During the October webinar, Daniel Hegner of Bejin Bieneman discusses the convergence of federal court and PTAB decisions questioning funct…Register

Subscribe