section 101

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

Organizing Security System Display Data Survives Patent-Eligibility Challenge

Proving that application of the Mayo/Alice patent-eligibility test remains unpredictable and inconsistent, patent claims directed to a security system that monitors “premises using a graphical floor plan” have survived a motio… Read More

Check Processing Claims Fail Alice Test at Federal Circuit

Patent claims directed to a “method for processing paper checks” are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the Mayo/Alice abstract idea test, the Federal Circuit held in Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., Nos. 2019, 1345, 2019-1460… Read More

No Technical Improvement Means No Patent-Eligibility

Here is a case illustrating a far from unusual scenario that also illustrates the morass of the current law of patent-eligibility under the Mayo/Alice test and 35 U.S.C. § 101. In NetSoc, LLC. v. Match Group, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-018… Read More

Factual Dispute Precludes Summary Judgment on Alice / § 101 Motion

Finding that competing expert declarations raised a factual question concerning whether claims recited an inventive concept, a  Delaware magistrate judge found that a summary judgment motion for invalidity of claims of U.S.… Read More

Patent-Eligibility Not Supported by an Ordered Combination of Generic Technology Elements

Patent claims reciting “buying and selling an item relating to unique subjects” unsurprisingly could not meet the patent-eligibility bar of 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the Alice/Mayo test when the patent owner appealed a lower court… Read More

Patents Claim E-commerce not Technical Solution, Fail § 101

A court found that claims of two patents were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 and the Alice/Mayo test because the claims were all “directed to the same economic practice: the idea of presenting discounts or offers for goods a… Read More