Claim Preclusion Does Not Apply to Ineligible Subject Matter: VideoShare, LLC v. Google LLC (W.D. Tx.)

The sins of the parent patent will not be visited on the child patent, at least in the Western District of Texas. An earlier determination of ineligible subject matter does not trigger claim preclusion against an infringement suit… Read More

Federal Circuit Holds Telecommunications System Access Control Patent-Ineligible: Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Comm. Tech. Holdings, Ltd.

Patent claims directed to “limiting and controlling access to resources in a telecommunications system” failed the 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the Alice/Mayo patent-eligibility test, held a split Federal Circuit panel, reversing the… Read More

Written Decision Needed For IPR Estoppel

In Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc. Case No. 17-cv-00072-BLF (N. D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2020) the Northern District of California denied Plaintiff Finjan’s motion for summary judgement of validity of a number of claims of various pa… Read More

No Attorney Fees for § 101 Dismissal: Data Scape Ltd. v. Spotify USA Inc.

Despite a refiled case and a subsequent dismissal for ineligible subject matter, plaintiff Data Scape escaped paying attorney fees to defendant Spotify in a recent decision from the Central District of California.  Data Scape Lim… Read More

§ 112 Enablement and Written Description in Post-Grant Review

When are written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 met, and what is a Petitioner’s burden of showing those requirements are not met in a PTAB proceeding? In Instrumentation Laboratory Co. v. Hemosonics… Read More

112 and the Zone of Uncertainty

In consolidated cases Niazi Licensing Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp. and Niazi Licensing Corp. v. St. Jude Medical S.C. Inc. the district court found U.S. Patent 6,638,268 (“the ‘268 patent”) to be invalid under 35 U.S.C.… Read More

Terminal Disclaimer: Common Ownership Necessary—or Not—for Standing

Two district courts recently came to the opposite conclusion on terminal disclaimers, an important issue in patent portfolio management. In both cases, the plaintiff asserted a patent for which a terminal disclaimer had been filed… Read More

District Court Finds Amazon Lockers Qualify as a Regular and Established Place of Business

Introduction Recently, in Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute et al v. Amazon.com, Inc., a district court weighed in on whether Amazon’s lockers constituted “a regular and established place of business” for the purposes of dete… Read More

State Universities Not Entitled to Sovereign Immunity from IPRs

Sovereign immunity does not exempt state governments from inter partes review, according to a Federal Circuit decision issued on Friday in Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LSI Corp. The decision extends the Federal Circui… Read More

Communications System Patent Falls Under § 101

In Uniloc USA Inc. v. LG Electronics USA Inc. the district court found claims directed to “primary station for use in a communications system” in U.S. Patent 6,993,049 (“the ‘049 patent”) to be invalid under 35 U.S.C. §… Read More