Patent claims directed to a communication system recite a technical solution and therefore, the Federal Circuit held, are not patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the two-part Mayo/Alice test. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Inc., No. 2019-1835 (Fed. Cir. April 30, 2020) (precedential) (opinion by Judge Moore, joined by Judges Reyna and Taranto). The court thus reversed Judge Koh in the Northern District of California, who had found that claims of U.S. Patent 6,993,049 were not patent-eligible, and had granted a Rule12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Representative claim 2 of the ’049 patent recites: A primary station for use in a communications system comprising at least one secondary station, wherein means are provided for broadcasting a series of inquiry messages, each in the form of a plurality of predetermined data fields arranged according to a first communications protocol, and for adding to each inquiry message prior to transmission an additional data…
Tag: patentable subject matter
Communications System Patent Falls Under § 101
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. § 101 for not claiming patentable subject matter. The invalidly determination for the ‘049 patent was arrived at by the court after analysis under the Alice framework, the court ultimately determining that the claims were directed to an abstract idea. Claim 2, selected by the court as representative, recites: A primary station for use in a communications system comprising at least one secondary station, wherein means are provided for broadcasting a series of inquiry messages, each in the form of a plurality of predetermined data fields arranged according to a first communications protocol, and for adding to each inquiry message prior to transmission an additional data field for polling at least one secondary…
Finding of Improved Computer Functionally Supports Patent-Eligibility
In IDB Ventures, LLC v. Charlotte Russe Holdings, Inc. (2:17-CV-660-WCB-RSP), the Eastern District of Texas highlighted the effectiveness of showing that a patent claim is directed to a specific improvement to computer functionally for overcoming a challenge based on 35 U.S.C. § 101. Plaintiff IDB Ventures, LLC, (IDB) sued Defendant Charlotte Russe Holdings, INC., (Charlotte Russe) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,216,139 (the ‘139 patent) entitled “Integrated Dialog Box for Rapidly Altering Presentation of Parametric Text Data Objects on a Computer Display.” Claim 1 of the ‘139 patent recites: 1. A method for using a computer system to sort and display text data objects, comprising the steps of: a. imaging, on a display device controlled by the computer system, a query dialog box, where in the query dialog box displays each of a plurality of parameters associated with each of the text data objects, forms a plurality of spaces for listing…
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…
Patent Eligibility and Obviousness in a Covered Business Method Patent Review
The limits of patent eligibility continue to be a major hurtle for patent owners whose patents are subject to Covered Business Method Patent Review (CBM) at the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In IBG LLC v. Trading Tech. Int. Inc., Case CMB2016-00090 (PTAB December 7, 2017) the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision holding that US Patent 7,725,382 was not directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. In addition to the §101 holding, the PTAB held that the Petitioner failed to meet their burden to show that the ‘382 Patent was obvious over certain prior art under 35 U.S.C. §103. Representative claim 1 of the ‘382 Patent recites: 1. A method of canceling an order entered for a commodity at an electronic exchange, the method comprising: receiving data relating to the commodity from the electronic exchange, the data comprising an inside market with a current…