On July 30, 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office updated its subject matter eligibility guidance ("Eligibility Update"). This update provides recommendations and resources for examiners in addition to those in the...more
8/26/2015
/ Abstract Ideas ,
Bilski ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Mayo v. Prometheus ,
New Guidance ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Preemption ,
SCOTUS ,
Ultramercial v Hulu ,
USPTO
The Federal Circuit issued a unanimous en banc decision yesterday regarding when joint tortfeasors may be held liable for literal infringement in Akamai Technologies Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. In its opinion, the court...more
The Federal Circuit handed down a unanimous en banc decision today regarding the interplay between literal infringement and induced infringement in Akamai Technologies Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. On remand from a...more
Section 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) established a transitional program through which the USPTO conducts post-grant reviews of covered business method (CBM) patents. For the most part, § 18 incorporates...more
7/16/2015
/ America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Claim Construction ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Covered Business Method Patents ,
Covered Business Method Proceedings ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Post-Grant Review ,
SCOTUS ,
USPTO
On September 23, 2010, Eon filed suit against seventeen defendants in the District Court of the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,663,757. During the case, the '757 patent went through two...more
Note: This coverage of a district court case from last year provides an overview of the patented invention, as well as the decision currently being appealed to the Federal Circuit. In a subsequent article, we will review the...more
6/30/2015
/ America Invents Act ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Internet ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Section 101 ,
Ultramercial v Hulu ,
USPTO
Since late last year, the main theme of many 35 U.S.C. § 101 disputes has been whether claims under review are more like those in Ultramercial Inc. v. Hulu LLC or DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com. In the former case, the...more
1. Background -
In 2006, Akamai Technologies ("Akamai") sued Limelight Networks, Inc. ("Limelight") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,108,703. The...more
6/22/2015
/ Akamai Technologies ,
Direct Infringement ,
Indirect Infringement ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Internet ,
Limelight Networks ,
Limelight v Akamai ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Technology
The Ultramercial story is not over. In the latest step of a controversial case involving 35 U.S.C. § 101 that has been ongoing since 2009, patentee Ultramercial has petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The...more
6/4/2015
/ CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Copyright ,
Hulu ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Internet Streaming ,
Music ,
Online Videos ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Petition for Writ of Certiorari ,
Section 101 ,
Software ,
Technology ,
Ultramercial v Hulu ,
WildTangent v Ultramercial ,
YouTube
In August, 2009, Allvoice sued Microsoft in the Western District of Washington, alleging infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 5,799,273. In December, 2013, the District Court granted Microsoft's motion for summary judgment...more
Two months ago, in a long-awaited decision, the Federal Circuit invalided Ultramercial's U.S. Patent No. 7,346,545, directed to online video advertisements, as lacking patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Court...more
1/20/2015
/ Advertising ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
En Banc Review ,
Mayo v. Prometheus ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Petition for Review ,
SCOTUS ,
Ultramercial v Hulu ,
WildTangent v Ultramercial
Patentee Content Extraction and Transmission (CET) owns U.S. Patent Nos. 5,258,855 (the '855 patent), 5,369,508 (the '508 patent), 5,625,465 (the '465 patent), and 5,768,416 (the '416 patent). The '508, '465, and '416...more
DDR Holdings ("DDR") sued Hotels.com and several other defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,993,572 and 7,818,399. DDR eventually...more
Ultramercial sued Hulu, YouTube, and WildTangent for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,346,545. Hulu and YouTube were eventually dismissed from the case. On a 12(b)(6) motion, and without construing the claims, the District...more
This case has a storied history. Ultramercial sued Hulu, YouTube, and WildTangent for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,346,545. Hulu and YouTube were eventually dismissed from the case. On a 12(b)(6) motion, the District...more
Planet Bingo is the assignee of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,398,646 and 6,656,045, both directed to computer-implemented methods and systems for managing bingo games. Planet Bingo filed an infringement action in the United States...more
In This Issue:
- The Analysis for Design Patent Infringement Post-Egyptian Goddess
- Supreme Court Issues Decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
- Capitol Records, LLC v. Pandora Media, Inc.: Future of...more
8/27/2014
/ Capitol Records ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Copyright ,
Design Patent ,
Digital Media ,
Music Industry ,
Pandora ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
SCOTUS
There's an old saying that “bad facts make bad law,” acknowledging that a court's decisions regarding extreme cases can result in law poorly adapted to less extreme cases. The Supreme Court's recent trio of 35 U.S.C. § 101...more
Ever since the 2010 Supreme Court opinion in Bilski v. Kappos was handed down, the debate over the scope of patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been at times stimulating, complex, comical, and frustrating. Now it...more
On April 12, 2013, Segin Software sued Stewart Title and several other parties for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,165,939. The defendants filed a petition with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office requesting post-grant...more
Less than four weeks after the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, the Federal Circuit has used the holding of that case to strike down a patentee's claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101....more
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) wasted no time providing guidance to its examining corps regarding the recent Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. Just one week after the Justices...more
A very experienced patent attorney once told me that you should never write means-plus-function claims unless there is a Luger at your temple. This, the first opinion addressing indefiniteness to come from the Federal...more
While non-precedential, this recent Federal Circuit decision further illustrates the Court's thinking with regard to the patent-eligibility of computer-implemented inventions under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and provides a reminder...more
In an example of judicial reasoning rolling downhill, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has struck down claims directed to a computer-implemented business method as failing to meet...more