Bejin Bieneman PLC

Communications System Patent Falls Under § 101

by Mark St. Amour on May 7th, 2019

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

Webpage Tutorial Software Patent Invalidated

by David Hannon on May 1st, 2019

Pendo.io, Inc. obtained a dismissal of Walkme Ltd.’s patent infringement suit in the Southern District of New York (Case No. 18cv7654), in a ruling that invalidated Walkme’s US Patent No. 9,922,008 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. … Read More

Claims Survive on Unresolved Question of Fact

by Peter Keros on April 29th, 2019

The Central District of California recently denied a motion to dismiss on patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because a question of fact remained unresolved. In MoviePass, Inc. v. Sinemia, Inc., No. CV 2:18-1517 (C.D. Cal. A… Read More

Lack of Technical Solution in Patent Claims Justifies CBM Review and Alice Ineligibility

by Charles Bieneman on April 22nd, 2019

Finding that claims of patents directed “to a graphical user interface (‘GUI’) for electronic trading” lacked a technical solution to a technical problem, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisi… Read More

Courts Don’t Follow the PTO’s § 101 Patent-Eligibility Guidance so Why Should You?

by Charles Bieneman on April 15th, 2019

The Federal Circuit’s recent dicta in a non-precedential decision stating that it need not give deference to the USPTO’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 patent-eligibility guidance highlights the challenges faced by patent applicants. In Cle… Read More

Radio over Internet Protocol (RoIP) is Patent-Eligible

by Nathan Smith on April 11th, 2019

The District of Delaware recently denied a motion to dismiss based on lack of patent-eligible subject matter, under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the Alice/Mayo test, in claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,333,806 directed to two-way radio commu… Read More

PTAB: Derivatives Trading Patent Claim Passes Alice Test, Opinion Designated “Informative”

by Charles Bieneman on March 24th, 2019

Here is a sign that the USPTO’s January, 2019, guidance on 35 U.S.C. § 101 and patent-eligibility may have an immediate and significant impact on USPTO rejections under the Mayo/Alice abstract idea test. The guidance became ef… Read More

Factual Dispute Precludes Summary Judgment on Alice / § 101 Motion

by Charles Bieneman on March 18th, 2019

Finding that competing expert declarations raised a factual question concerning whether claims recited an inventive concept, a Delaware magistrate judge found that a summary judgment motion for invalidity of claims of U.S.… Read More

Another Delayed Patent Eligibility Decision

by Peter Keros on March 14th, 2019

Once again, a district court in California urged parties to improve their pleadings before deciding patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In Kajeet v. Qustodio, CV18-01519 JAK (Feb. 28, 2019), the Central District of Californ… Read More

District Courts Avoid Determining Patent Eligibility

by Peter Keros on March 4th, 2019

How much evidence and claim construction does a court need to make a determination on eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101? According to district courts in California, it depends? In SkyHawke Techs. v. DECA Int’l, CV 18-1234-GW(PL… Read More