News & Analysis as of

Section 101 Claim Construction Motion to Dismiss

Alston & Bird

Patent Case Summaries | Week Ending August 15, 2025

Alston & Bird on

PowerBlock Holdings, Inc. v. iFit, Inc., No. 2024-1177 (Fed. Cir. (D. Utah) Aug. 11, 2025). Opinion by Stoll, joined by Taranto and Scarsi (sitting by designation). PowerBlock sued iFit for infringement of a patent directed...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Sanderling Management v. Snap Inc. No. 21-2173 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2023) Alice – 35 U.S.C. § 101

This case addresses patent eligibility under Alice and whether the district court should have afforded the patent owner leave to amend its complaint. Background - Sanderling asserted three patents sharing a common...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Invoking Generic Need for Claim Construction Won’t Avoid § 101 Dismissal

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a patent infringement suit on § 101 grounds, rejecting the patentee’s argument that claim construction or discovery was required before assessing...more

BakerHostetler

The Judicial Response to Eligibility Post-Hantz

BakerHostetler on

On March 20, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a short non-precedential opinion that, among other things, found that a motion to dismiss based on patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

District Court Denied Rule 12(b)(6) Motion Based on Section 101 Because Additional Facts and Claim Construction Would Provide...

While a district court in California remained “skeptical” of the patent eligibility of three computer-implemented patents, the court denied a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court found that claim...more

Holland & Knight LLP

No More Ripples from Pebble Tide; Data Output Patents Found to be Abstract, Invalid

Holland & Knight LLP on

Over the past year, Pebble Tide LLC has asserted its two patents against an array of companies – from banks and insurance companies to entertainment conglomerates – alleging that the defendants infringe patents related to...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - April 2019

Knobbe Martens on

Just Because Something May Result From a Prior Art Teaching Does Not Make it Inherent in that Teaching - In Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1599, the Federal Circuit clarified that the mere...more

McDermott Will & Schulte

Specific Functions Improving Computer Technology Are 101-Eligible, Unconventionality Not Required

McDermott Will & Schulte on

In two recent decisions, judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit expounded on the standards under which software-related patent claims are subject matter eligible under 35 USC § 101. Ancora Techs. v. HTC...more

Vedder Price

Overcoming Early Alice Rejections in Litigation

Vedder Price on

In 2014, the United States Supreme Court in a landmark decision in the field of Patent Law (Alice Corp. v. CLS Int’l) invalidated software patents related to mitigating settlement risk. Relying on the now-infamous Section...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - March 2018

Knobbe Martens on

Distribution Agreements Can Constitute Offers for Sale Under Section 102(b) - In The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2014-1469, 2014-1504, the Federal Circuit held that a distribution agreement qualified as...more

Jones Day

District Court Considers IPR In Deciding Alice Motion

Jones Day on

On November 20, 2017, a district court denied a defendant’s Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) motion that sought to dismiss the case on the ground that the asserted patents were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §...more

Knobbe Martens

Searching for How: The Federal Circuit’s Continued Quest under Alice

Knobbe Martens on

On October 16, 2017, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that the claims in Secured Mail Solutions LLC, v. Universal Wilde, Inc. (“Secured Mail”) were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

Visual Memory v. Nvidia reverses the grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), ruling that the claims recite an enhanced computer memory system and not an abstract idea under § 101. In Georgetown Rail v. Holland, the...more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

"Strategies for Litigants in Patent Infringement Cases Using Motions to Dismiss Post-Alice"

Nearly three years have passed since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on patent eligibility in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l. The decision, which ushered in an unprecedented wave of cases invalidating...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

The Importance of the Specification in Alice Challenges

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

It is axiomatic that the claims of a patent describe the invention, and for Alice challenges, define whether an invention is drawn to an abstract idea without an inventive concept. Of course, claims are construed in light of...more

15 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