section 101

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