Easy CAFC Patent-Eligibility Case: Digital Product Licensing

In a one-line order under its Rule 36, the Federal Circuit has affirmed a decision of Judge Schroeder in the Eastern District of Texas granted a Rule12(b)(6) motion to dismiss claims of patent infringement where claims were directed to “adjusting the number of devices allowed to use a digital product (e.g., software) under a license.”  Uniloc, USA, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.No. 2017-2051 (Fed. Cir., Aug. 9, 2018).  The district court decision finding claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,566,960 patent-ineligible under the Alice/Mayo test and 35 U.S.C. § 101 is discussed in this post.

It should be no surprise that the Federal Circuit panel (Chief Judge Prost and Judges Taranto and Chen) made this a Rule 36 affirmance.  In a nutshell, the district court’s decision had explained that the claims of the ’960 patent were invalid under § 101 because “time-adjustable licenses” were a “fundamental economic practice.”  Certainly, if you look at the claim reproduced in the above-referenced post, you will have a hard time arguing that there was any technical invention, or anything recited other than managing software licenses.

Upcoming Webinar

The November B2 IP Webinar is being presented by Thomas Bejin, member of Bejin Bieneman, who will provide an update on recent case law and developments associated with willful patent infringement. Mr. Bejin will discuss best practices when considerin…Register

Subscribe