[firm] blog logo
Federal Circuit Relies on Claim Construction and Precedent to Find Software Claims Patent Eligible

Federal Circuit Relies on Claim Construction and Precedent to Find Software Claims Patent Eligible

Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., No. 15-1180 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2016) is the latest in a series of recent decisions in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has reversed a district court’s finding of patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  In Amdocs, the Federal Circuit addressed the application of the judicially created “abstract idea” exception to patent eligibility under the two-step framework set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (following Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012)). The district court in Amdocs invalidated the four patents asserted by Plaintiff-Appellant Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. as patent ineligible under § 101 using the two-step Alice/Mayo framework:  US Patent Nos. 7,631,065 (“’065 patent”); 7,412,510 (“’510 patent”); 6,947,984 (“’984 patent”); and 6,836,797 (“’797 patent”).  As discussed by the Federal Circuit, all… Continue Reading

A Reminder To Support Claims That Are Arguably Broader Than Described Embodiments

A Reminder To Support Claims That Are Arguably Broader Than Described Embodiments

On August 15, 2016, in an opinion by Judge Moore in ScriptPro LLC. V. Innovation Assocs., Inc. (ScriptPro I), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed the issue of how much written description support is needed under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph) for patent claims that are broader than the primary embodiments disclosed in the specification.[1]  More specifically, the holding of ScriptPro I reinforces the importance of describing multiple embodiments within the specification, and alternatively including some broadening language within the specification to help defend broad claims against allegations that the specification lacks written description support.[2] Background In 2006, ScriptPro sued Innovation Associates, Inc. (“Innovation Associates”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,910,601 (“the ’601 patent”).  The ’601 patent describes a collating unit used to store prescription containers after medication has been dispensed into the prescription containers by an automatic dispensing system (“ADS”).[3] … Continue Reading

The Federal Circuit Analyzes the Disavowal Exception to the General Claim Construction Rule

The Federal Circuit Analyzes the Disavowal Exception to the General Claim Construction Rule

On October 14, 2016, in Poly-America, L.P. v. API Industries (Appeal No. 16-1200, Fed. Cir. October 14, 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”) analyzed and applied one of two exceptions to the general claim construction rule that claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.  Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).  This one exception states that the plain and ordinary meaning standard [of claim construction] is departed from when the patentee disavows the full scope of the claim term in the specification or during prosecution. Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The question before the CAFC in Poly-America was whether any of the terminology in the asserted patent, or any of patentee’s actions during its prosecution, could be interpreted as a disavowal of claim scope.  In answering this question,… Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Questions Use Of Common Sense in Obviousness Rejections

Federal Circuit Questions Use Of Common Sense in Obviousness Rejections

Is common sense good enough to make up for deficiencies of a cited reference in an obviousness analysis?  In Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit said “no,” by reversing a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) to invalidate U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843 (the “Arendi patent”). When Arendi S.A.R.L., a Luxembourg company, brought patent infringement suits against several technology heavyweights, including Apple, Inc., Google, Inc., and Motorola Mobility LLC, these defendant companies struck back by filing a petition for an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) seeking to invalidate the Arendi patent.  In the IPR proceeding, the PTAB invalidated the Arendi patent on the grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.  Arendi then appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit. The Arendi patent is directed to computer functions that allow a user to remain in a document displayed by a first computer… Continue Reading

The Federal Circuit Muddies The 101 Waters After BASCOM

The Federal Circuit Muddies The 101 Waters After BASCOM

On September 30, 2016, in Intellectual Ventures I LLC, v. Symantec Corp., No. 15-1769, 15-1770, 15-1771, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) overturned a lower court’s finding of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for a patent directed to using computer virus screening in a telephone network, while affirming the lower court’s finding of patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for two other patents directed to methods of screening emails and other data files for unwanted content, and methods of routing e-mail messages based on specified rules.    The court analyzed each of the patents at issue separately using the Mayo/Alice two-part test for determining patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, coming to the same conclusion each time. First, the court addressed U.S. Patent No.  6,460,050 (“the ‘050 patent”), which was held patent ineligible by the lower court.  The ‘050 patent is directed to filtering e-mails that have unwanted content by… Continue Reading

The Few, The Proud, The Patent-Eligible Software Claims

The Few, The Proud, The Patent-Eligible Software Claims

It is no secret that it is difficult for software technology patent claims to be deemed subject matter eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on appeal, as only a handful of cases involving software technology have passed § 101 scrutiny by the Federal Circuit since the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice v. CLS Bank[1]: Until recently, there have been only three such cases: DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,[2] Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,[3] and BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC.[4] However, now a fourth case may be added to those ranks. On September 13, 2016, the Federal Circuit decided McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc.,[5] ruling that claims directed to automating part of a preexisting 3-D animation method were patent-eligible under § 101. Below is a review of the McRO case facts, the legal reasoning of the Federal Circuit in reaching its conclusion, and… Continue Reading

December 2017
S M T W T F S
« Nov    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

Archives