Routine Steps Fail to Transform Abstract Idea

Claims that fail to explicitly recite a specific way to solve a specific technological problem are at risk under §101, especially when the underlying technology is known and only implements routine steps. Such claims fail to tran… Read More

PTAB Declines to Institute CBM Review on Financial Industry Telecommunications Technology

The PTAB declines to institute CBM on US8189566 titled “Software based trading turret.” According to the patent specification, “[a] trading turret system is a specialized telephony switching system that allows a… Read More

PTAB Construes Patent Claim Terms as Subject to §112 ¶6 in IPR

The USPTO’s PTAB held that the term “drive module” was a means-plus-function limitation subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (now 112(f))  in its decision to institute an Inter Partes Review (IPR) in Apple Inc.,… Read More

PTAB Indefiniteness Standard Is Different than the Federal Circuit’s

In Telebrands Corp. v. Tinnus Enterprises, LLC, PGR2015-00018 (Dec. 30, 2016), the PTAB found the phrase “substantially filled” indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) on post-grant review (PGR). In the course of reaching this co… Read More

Post Grant Review and Section 112: A Curious Case

In a case where it strikingly relied on prior art sharing a specification with the patent at issue, the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidated the patent on several grounds, including lack of written descriptio… Read More