section 101

Patent Claims for “Two-step Pick and Place” fail § 101 at Rule 12 stage.

Patent claims directed to a two-step “pick and place” operation for attaching electronic parts to a circuit body (a “die attach” method) were held ineligible on a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings under 35 U.… Read More

Barcode Patent Fails Alice § 101 Test: Coding Technologies, LLC v. Mississippi Power Co.

Patent claims directed to scanning a code pattern for billing information and then processing a bill based on billing information obtained thereby have been held ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the  Alice/Mayo test. In Cod… Read More

Patent Claims to 3D Virtual Environment Held Ineligible at Pleadings Stage: Barbaro Technologies, LLC v. Niantic Inc.

Patent claims directed to a 3D virtual game environment were held ineligible on a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the  Alice/Mayo test. Barbaro Technologies, LLC v. Niantic Inc., Case N… Read More

It’s Official: Berkheimer and USPTO’s January 2019 Guidance Have Reduced Alice Rejections

According to a recent report by the USPTO’s Chief Economist, the Federal Circuit’s 2018 Berkheimer decision and the USPTO’s January 2019 patent-eligibility guidance have reduced both the frequency and uncertainty of examiner… Read More

§ 101 Patent-Eligibility Turns on a Technical Solution to a Technical Problem: Pebble Tide LLC v. Arlo Technologies

In an interesting dichotomy, patent claims directed to outputting digital content did not survive, but claims directed to social network search output did survive, respective motions to dismiss based on lack of patent-eligible sub… Read More

Patent-Eligibility Legislative Reform Is Not Coming Soon

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 to Evaluating Body Movement Fail § 101 on Post-Trial Motion: ILife Technologies, Inc. V. Nintendo Of America, Inc.

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

Emergency Alert System Is Not Patent-Eligible: Tenaha Licensing LLC v. TigerConnect, Inc.

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

Patent Claims to Virtual Smartphone for Automobile Fail Alice Test: KCG Technologies, LLC v. CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc.

Claims directed to a virtual smartphone that could be displayed on a vehicle touchscreen are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the two-part Mayo/Alice patent-eligibility test, held the court in KCG Technologies, LLC v… Read More

Determining Patent-Eligibility Requires Claim Construction!(?)

In a decision that Judge Lourie in dissent described as “based on a claim construction issue that is little more than a mirage,” a Federal Circuit panel vacated and remanded a district court’s Rule 12(c) judgment on the plea… Read More