In granting a motion to dismiss for lack of patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C § 101, a court determined that patents relating to moving a portable unit to view an image of a stationary map and using a portable wireless system to improve the operations of a group communicating electronically are abstract ideas that do not include an inventive concept. Gabara v. Facebook, Inc., No. 9cv9890(DLC) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 4, 2020) Plaintiff Gabara alleged that Facebook committed direct, induced, and contributory infringement of the five patents at issue: US Patent Nos. 8,930,131; 8,620,545; 8,836,698; 8,706,400 (the “Image Patents”), and 9,299,348 (the “348 patent”). The Image Patents The Image Patents are directed toward moving a portable unit, such as a mobile device, to view an image of a stationary map instead of scrolling on the device to change the view. The court likened this concept to moving a telescope across a…
Wireless Surveillance System with Generic Components is Patent-Ineligible: Sensormatic Elect., LLC, v. Wize Labs, Inc.
In granting a motion to dismiss based on lack of patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the Alice/Mayo test, a court held that patent claims for multiple patents directed to “wireless surveillance systems for monitoring a target environment” are abstract ideas, and “merely implement[ing] the abstract idea of wireless communication and remote surveillance using well-known, generic computer components and functionalities” does not provide an inventive concept. Sensormatic v. Wyze Labs., No. 19-1543-CFC (D. Del. Sept. 3, 2020) (patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,954,129; 7,730,534; 7,936,370; and 8,610,772) The court identified claim 14 of the ‘129 patent as representative of all claims in the asserted patents. Independent claim 14 of the ‘129 patent is reproduced here: 14. A surveillance system for wireless communication between components comprising: a base system including at least two wireless input capture devices (ICDs), the ICSs having at least one sensor and at least one input…
Case Dismissed Because Lack of Direct Infringement of Patent Claims Requiring a Mobile Device: Garrett v. TP-Link Research
A district court recently dismissed a complaint for failing to properly allege direct infringement with the mobile device recited in the patent claims. Garrett v. TP-Link Research America (N.D. Cal.). An app for installation on a mobile device does not count as a mobile device or as using a mobile device for showing direct infringement, and when pleading indirect infringement, direct infringement by an end user must be alleged. Garrett’s complaint against TP-Link failed on these scores, so the court granted TP-Link’s motion to dismiss the complaint, without prejudice. Garrett, an individual, sued TP-Link over its line of a security cameras for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,854,207 and 10,511,809. All the claims of the patents require a “mobile device” and a “camera,” and some of the claims further require a “server.” The court used claim 19 of the ’207 patent and claim 10 of the ’809 patent as representative:…
35 U.S.C. § 287(a) and the Burdens of Providing Notice for Pre-Suit Damages: Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc.
In Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. the Federal Circuit reversed a jury determination for pre-suit damages, and vacated an enhancement of such damages, for Netscout’s infringement of U.S. Patent 6,665,725, U.S. Patent 6,839,751, and U.S. Patent 6,954,789, all owned by Packet Intelligence. The patents at issue were all directed to monitoring packets exchanged over a computer network. The ‘798 patent includes system claims, and the ‘725 and ‘751 patents include method claims. It was important in this case that infringement of the various system and method claims have different requirements to qualify for pre-suit damages. Pre-suit damages for the system claims are controlled by the marking requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), whereas pre-suit damages for the method claims are not. With respect to the method claims of the ‘725 and ‘751 patents, Packet Intelligence argued that evidence of direct infringement of the ‘725 and ‘751 patents was…
How to (Not) Prove Infringement of a Means-Plus-Function Patent Claim: SPEX Technologies, Inc. v. Apricorn
A patent plaintiff saw its jury trial victory vacated when the court granted a defense motion for judgment as a matter of law under FRCP 50(b), finding that the plaintiff had not proved that the accused products had structure corresponding to claimed means. SPEX Technologies, Inc. v. Apricorn, No. CV 16-07349 JVS (AGRx) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2020). The jury found infringement of claims 11 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802. Those claims recite: 11. A peripheral device, comprising: security means for enabling one or more security operations to be performed on data; target means for enabling a defined interaction with a host computing device; means for enabling communication between the security means and the target means; means for enabling communication with a host computing device; and means for mediating communication of data between the host computing device and the target means so that the communicated data must first…