Patent Claims to Authenticating Users in Transactions Lack Technical Improvement, Fail Patent-Eligibility: Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc.

Claims directed to authenticating users for a transaction are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the Alice/Mayo patent-eligibility test, and therefore the court granted a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in Universal… Read More

Claimed Improvement Not Patent-Eligible Where Reducible to Mental Steps: Money and Data Protection Lizenz GMPH & Co. KG v. Duo Security, Inc.

A Rule 12 motion to dismiss was granted where patent claims directed to “authenticating a user to a transaction at a terminal” failed the 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Alice/Mayo patent-eligibility test. Money and Data Protection Lize… Read More

Shure Infringement Claims Against ClearOne Survive Motion to Dismiss Based on Civil Procedure Rules

In the latest development in extensive litigation between Shure and ClearOne over audio and conferencing equipment, the District of Delaware rejected a motion to dismiss Shure’s claims over multiple civil procedure grounds, incl… Read More

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