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

Functional Claiming: Pitfalls and How To’s
October 18, 2018 at 12:00 pm EDT
Recent decisions under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 112, and 103 come into focus when viewed through a common lens. During the October webinar, Daniel Hegner of Bejin Bieneman discusses the convergence of federal court and PTAB decisions questioning funct…Register

Subscribe