The District Court for the Northern District of California recently handed down a claim construction order in Microchip Technology Incorporated v. Nuvoton Technology that held the claim limitation “protocol module” was indefin…
Read More
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
The District of Delaware held that patent claims for multiple patents directed to “electronic trading and settlement systems” are abstract ideas, and “[e]ncouraging participation in a system in which all parties need to util…
Read More
The Eastern District of Texas recently invalidated several patent claims that the court had found indefinite in a separate claim construction ruling in the case Uniloc 2017 v. Samsung. Interestingly, the court found the claim term…
Read More
A court held that patent claims directed to “the longstanding commercial practice of paying for public transit” are abstract ideas, and “the mere assemblage of admittedly known components” does not provide an inventive con…
Read More
A provisional patent application must include sufficient description to allow a person having ordinary skill in the art to make an invention as claimed in an asserted patent claiming priority to the provisional application, as rec…
Read More
In an interview published by the Intellectual Property Owner’s Association, Senator Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) addressed the question many have asked: is Congress going to fix the § 101 patent-eligibility mess? The answer? Not any ti…
Read More
Patent claims directed to automating collection and interpretation of sensor data are often suspect under the two-part Mayo/Alice patent-eligibility test under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Not so often, however, do judges do as the court…
Read More
Patent claims directed to “alert and notification” are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the two-part Mayo/Alice patent-eligibility test, said a Delaware magistrate judge, recommending granting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion t…
Read More
During a Markman patent claim construction proceeding, the Western District of Texas ruled multiple claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,284,203 invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 because the claims “improperly combine sys…
Read More
