Latest Posts › Software Patents

Share:

Finnavations LLC v. Payoneer, Inc. (D. Del. 2019)

Court Grants Exceptional Case/Attorney Fees When Software Patent Has Invalid Claims under § 101 - In the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, motions for an exceptional case and attorneys' fees were granted on...more

Patent Infringement Analysis Varies Based on Statutory Claim Type

Patent claims serve to provide notice as to the scope of an invention described in a patent. The claims can be directed to various statutory types, such as an apparatus, article, composition, method, system, or any other...more

In re Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Acting as Lexicographers Saves Patent from Being Found Invalid - In a recent Federal Circuit decision, the Court highlighted an old rule in that the inventors may act as their own lexicographers to create a claim term and...more

Fitbit, Inc. v. AliphCom (N.D. Cal. 2017)

Software Patent Directed to Pairing Activity Trackers to a Device Considered Patent-Eligible - In the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose Division), Fitbit, Inc., sued Aliphcom (d/b/a...more

Speedtrack Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2017)

File-Searching Software Patent Found to be Patent Eligible - Speedtrack sued Amazon for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,544,360 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. ...more

Tranxition, Inc. v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Federal Circuit Finds Another Software Patent Invalid under Section 101 - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a recent non-precedential decision in a case captioned Tranxition, Inc. v. Lenovo (United...more

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2016) - Just When You Thought the Federal Circuit Was Softening...

Intellectual Ventures I LLC ("IV") sued Symantec Corp. and Trend Micro (defendants) for infringement of various claims of three U.S. Patents (Nos. 6,460,050; 6,073,142; and 5,987,610). The District Court held the asserted...more

Zak v. Facebook, Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2016) - Software Patent Found to Be Directed to Abstract Idea, But Survives § 101 Challenge with...

Bruce Zak, an individual, sued Facebook, Inc. for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on two of his software patents -- United States Patent Nos. 8,713,134 and 9,141,720. ...more

LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016) - Claims of Another "Loan Application" Patent Invalidated under Section 101

In a nonprecedential opinion issued earlier today, the Federal Circuit invalidated claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 that had survived the District Court in LendingTree, LLC, v. Zillow, Inc., Nextag, Inc., & Adchemy, Inc. This...more

HP Inc. v. Big Baboon, Inc. (PTAB 2016) - Business Method Patent Not Invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101

HP Inc. and SAP America, Inc. filed a Petition seeking a covered business method (CBM) patent review of claims 15 and 20–34 of U.S. Patent No. 6,343,275 owned by Big Baboon, Inc. The PTAB, however, determined that the...more

Coffelt v. NVIDIA Corp. (C.D. Cal. 2016) - Mathematical Algorithm Found to be Unpatentable

On June 21, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued an order granting a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for lack of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Defendants...more

BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016) - Federal Circuit Concurrence -- Decide Patentability...

The Federal Circuit earlier today vacated a District Court's order dismissing BASCOM's complaint and remanded for further proceedings. BASCOM sued AT&T Inc. for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,987,606, and the U.S....more

Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte Ltd. v. Asustek Computer, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2016)

"Quick Look Test" Used by District Court to Support Lack of Preemption and Find Software Claims Patent Eligible - On April 15, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order Denying...more

Treehouse Avatar LLC v. Valve Corp. (D.C. Del. 2016)

U.S. Patent to Consumer Marketing, Based on Avatar Choices, Survives § 101 Challenge - On March 22, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware issued a Memorandum Opinion in a case captioned Treehouse...more

Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Corp. (E.D. Tex. 2016)

Genband US LLC sued Metaswitch for infringement of claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,210 ("the '210 Patent") and U.S. Patent No 7,047,561 ("the '561 Patent") in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas...more

Recognicorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co. (W.D. Wash. 2015)

Generic Software Claims Found Ineligible under § 101 - A common theme found in recent patent litigation is that software claims lacking detail are more likely to be found invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The U.S....more

01 Communique Laboratory, Inc. vs. Citrix Systems, Inc., (N.D. Ohio 2015)

Patent Eligibility Requires Consideration of the Claim as a Whole - The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Eastern Division) issued an opinion on December 21, 2015 in the case captioned 01 Communique...more

Vehicle Intelligence and Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015)

Patent Claims (and Specification) Lacking in Detail Fail under 35 U.S.C. § 101 - The Federal Circuit issued an opinion on December 28, 2015 in the case captioned Vehicle Intelligence and Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA,...more

"Software" Claims Reciting No Structural Components and Having Questionable Novelty Struck Down under 35 U.S.C. § 101

Two recent District Court decisions show examples of "weak" claims, which in the past would likely be found invalid as lacking novelty or being obvious, but today are struck down as being unpatentable under § 101. The cases...more

19 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide