IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
Results for "Patent application"
Subscribe to Results for "Patent application"'s Posts

PTO Proposes Trademark Application Filing Changes, Fee Adjustments

by | Apr 4, 2024 |

On March 26, 2024, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register concerning changes to trademark application filings and fee adjustments in trademark cases for 2025. The PTO solicits written comments from the public on the proposed rule changes on or before May 28, 2024. The proposed rules seek to generate sufficient multiyear revenue for trademark operations in future years based on projections described in the notice.

The changes are recommended to support the PTO’s strategic goals and objectives, including optimizing trademark application pendency through the promotion of efficient operations and filing behaviors, issuing accurate and reliable trademark registrations, and encouraging access to the trademark system for stakeholders.

The proposal seeks to incentivize more complete and timely filings, improve prosecution, adjust 31 trademark fees and impose 12 new fees while discontinuing six existing fees. The proposal also seeks to consolidate the present Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) filing options (i.e., TEAS Plus and TEAS standard) into a single electronic filing option. The single option would include most of the same requirements as TEAS Plus, while eliminating those under TEAS Standard. The new filing framework would discontinue the previous filing fees and fees for failing to meet the requirements of a TEAS Plus application. Similar to TEAS Plus, however, applicants complying with the proposed requirements in their initial filing would pay the lowest fees.

The proposed fee adjustments would:

  • Set the fee for a base application at $350 using the ID Master List (which is $100 more than the current fee for a TEAS Plus application)
  • Discontinue current fees for filing an application under the Madrid Protocol
  • Require surcharge fees between $100 and $200 for applications that are noncompliant with the base filing requirements
  • Require an additional $200 fee per class for the identification of goods and services entered in the free-form text field to incentivize use of the Trademark ID Manual for such identifications instead
  • Require an additional $200 fee for each additional group of 1,000 characters in the free-form text field; identifications directly from the ID Manual would not incur these fees
  • Increase fees by $50 for filing amendments to allege use (AAU) and statements of use (SOU), with fees being discounted $100 for electronic filings
  • Increase post-registration maintenance fees from $50 to $75
  • Increase the letter of protest fee from $50 to $150.

Regarding the proposed fee adjustments, the notice describes changes to 37 CFR 2.6 and 7.6. The notice further describes changes to 37 CFR 2.22 and 2.71 with respect to base application fees and amendments to correct informalities, respectively.

For further details, see the Federal Register notice.



read more

Senate Holds Hearing on Legislative Initiative to Address Patent Eligibility

by and | Feb 1, 2024 |

Seeking to undo the current jurisprudence “mess” on the issue of patent eligibility, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property heard testimony on January 23, 2024, on the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) (text here). PERA seeks to address the uncertainty and unpredictable outcomes created by the 2014 Supreme Court of the United States decision in Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l.

PERA is the latest iteration of 35 USC § 101 patent eligibility reform that Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE) have been introducing for years. Although the language has been tweaked over time, the bill’s purpose is to eliminate “[a]ll judicial exceptions to patent eligibility” and in their place codify several categories of inventions as unpatentable, such as mathematical formulas; processes that are substantially economic, financial, business, social, cultural or artistic; processes that are mental or purely natural; unmodified human genes; and unmodified natural materials.

The January 23 hearing featured eight witnesses, divided into two panels. The first panel included:

  • Andrei Iancu, former US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) director
  • Richard Blaylock, testifying on behalf of Invitae Corporation
  • Courtenay Brinckerhoff, partner at Foley & Lardner
  • Phil Johnson, steering committee chair at the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform.

The second panel included:

  • The Honorable David Kappos, former PTO director
  • Adam Mossoff, professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School
  • Mark Deem, operating partner of Lightstone Ventures
  • David Jones, executive director of the High-Tech Inventors Alliance.

Harkening back to prior panels, the testimony was largely in favor of reform considering what many characterized as inaction by all other stakeholders. Senators and witnesses alike recognized that legislative reform is likely the only way to gain clarity on § 101 considering the Supreme Court’s failure to take up more than 100 certiorari petitions seeking review, many with the Solicitor General’s endorsement.

During the first panel, Blaylock testified that PERA would improperly provide patent eligibility to new uses of natural phenomena, such as genetic material, and therefore “would stifle innovation and harm patient care in the fields of diagnostic genetic testing and precision medicine.” Iancu testified in response that “all human invention is the manipulation of nature towards practical uses by humans on this planet . . . and it should be eligible for a patent.” Brinckerhoff’s testimony also opposed Blaylock’s view; she explained that considerable research and development is needed to develop new uses for isolated natural products and would be disincentivized without patent eligibility. Brinckerhoff highlighted an important theme at the hearing: “PERA would bring eligibility back in line with other countries” by permitting patents on methods of detecting new diagnostic markers, thus maintaining international competitiveness. Lastly, Johnson testified that “[j]ust because something is eligible doesn’t mean it’s patentable” and stressed the importance of using §§ 102, 203 and 112 as additional filters to determine patentability.

During the second panel, venture capitalist Deem testified that “the United States is failing many of our most innovative startups” because [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Same Applicant, Similar Claims Support Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Rejection

by | Jan 4, 2024 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness-type double patenting rejection, finding that an unexpected mechanism of action does not render the known use of a known compound nonobvious. In re: Institut Pasteur, Case No. 22-1896 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 13, 2023) (Taranto, Clevenger, Stoll, JJ.) (nonprecedential).

Institut Pasteur filed a patent application directed to peptides derived from human basic proline-rich lacrimal protein and claimed, among other things, a method for treating pain comprising of administering 10 to 300 mg/day of the peptide for seven days. The examiner rejected the claims for obviousness-type double patenting over another patent application filed by Pasteur, which was directed to diagnostic and therapeutic uses of human basic proline-rich lacrimal protein and peptides derived therefrom.

Pasteur appealed to the Board, which affirmed the examiner’s rejection. Rather than appeal the Board’s decision to the Federal Circuit, Pasteur sought continued examination of the application and modified the claims to specify that the method of treatment was for human patients, was in a dose of 1 mg/kg to 2 mg/kg at 10 to 300 mg/day, and should not induce pharmacodependence or tolerance in the patient. The examiner rejected the amended claims for obviousness-type double patenting over the same application. On appeal, the Board issued another decision agreeing with the examiner. Pasteur appealed this decision.

Pasteur argued that the Board’s second decision was unsupported by substantial evidence because the Board applied a legally flawed prima facie obviousness analysis and disregarded the secondary indicia of nonobviousness presented in a declaration submitted by Catherine Rougeot, the named inventor of the application.

The Federal Circuit disagreed with Pasteur and affirmed the Board’s rejection. As for Pasteur’s argument that the Board disregarded the differences between the claims of the patent application and the claims of the other application, the Court noted that the Board “explained why each claim limitation was obvious in light of the [other application].” With respect to Pasteur’s argument that the Board improperly relied on inherency when finding one limitation of the filed application to be satisfied, the Court concluded that “[i]t is settled that inherency may supply a missing claim limitation in an obviousness analysis.”

As for Pasteur’s challenge to the Board’s consideration of the secondary indicia of nonobviousness presented in the Rougeot declaration, the Federal Circuit found that the Board’s analysis was supported by substantial evidence. The Court made clear that Pasteur failed to prove that the benefits claimed by the application were unexpected compared to the closest prior art since unexpected mechanisms of action do not ipso facto make the known use of known compounds nonobvious. The Court also noted that Federal Circuit precedent did not demand a finding of nonobviousness simply because one limitation was found to be satisfied through inherency. The Court was similarly unpersuaded by the long-felt need described in the Rougeot declaration because any need for the subject matter claimed by the patent application was already satisfied by the subject matter claimed by the other [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Distinguishing Drinkware—Provisional Priority Determined Differently in Pre- and Post-AIA Patents

by | Nov 30, 2023 | ,

In a precedential final written decision, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board concluded that a patent does not need to contain a claim supported by a provisional application’s disclosure to draw priority to that provisional for prior art purposes post America Invents Act (AIA). Penumbra, Inc. v. RapidPulse, Inc., IPR2021-01466, paper 34 (PTAB Mar. 10, 2023) (designated precedential Nov. 15, 2023) (Melvin, Cotta, Wisz, APJs).

Penumbra filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition targeting a patent directed to a “thrombectomy system,” which is a system for removing blood clots in the brain. Penumbra challenged the claims on four different grounds, and each included the Tiegen reference. Therefore, the petition would fail if the Tiegen reference was not prior art.

The challenged patent was filed on July 18, 2019, and drew priority to a provisional application filed on October 24, 2018. Tiegen drew priority to two provisional applications—one dated December 12, 2018, and another dated July 24, 2018. Whether Tiegen was prior art thus depended on whether the challenged patent could draw priority to its provisional application, and whether Tiegen could draw priority to its July 24, 2018, provisional. RapidPulse challenged Tiegen on both bases.

First, the Board assessed the proper priority date for the challenged patent. The Board explained that in order for the patent to draw priority to its provisional application, that provisional application had to provide written support for the challenged patent’s claims. Penumbra argued that the challenged patent’s provisional application did not have written support for the claimed “prevent[ing] forward flow.” RapidPulse responded, arguing that the disclosure of a “minimal amount of momentum from the fluid column” disclosed the claimed “preventing forward flow.” Forward flow generates momentum from the fluid column, so minimizing momentum required preventing fluid flow, according to RapidPulse. RapidPulse also pointed to embodiments that had substantially no forward flow from the distal end of the system.

Penumbra responded by explaining that the provisional application required forward flow in some embodiments, and nothing in the specification stated that the flow should be prevented. The Board agreed, explaining that the provisional application included embodiments with forward flow, and while the provisional recited some embodiments with small amounts of forward flow, the provisional did not indicate that the low forward flow was significant. The Board observed that “one cannot disclose a forest in the original application, and then later pick a tree out of the forest.”

Having determined that the priority date of the challenged patent was July 18, 2019, the Board turned to the priority date of Tiegen. The Board distinguished the present case over Dynamic Drinkware, a 2015 US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case. Dynamic Drinkware states that for prior art purposes, a prior art patent can only draw priority to a provisional application if the prior art patent contains a claim supported by that provisional application. The Board explained that Dynamic Drinkware does not apply post-AIA. Instead, the Board found that, based on the language of AIA 35 [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Statements in Unrelated Application Don’t Narrow Claim Term

by | Nov 9, 2023 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a stipulated judgment of noninfringement in a patent infringement dispute after construing a disputed claim term, taking a more literal approach than the district court based on the meanings of the individual words of the claim language. Malvern Panalytical Inc. v. TA Instruments-Waters LLC, Case No. 22-1439 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2023) (Prost, Hughes, Cunningham, JJ.)

The dispute involved a suit brought by Malvern against TA Instruments-Waters and Waters Technologies Corporation (collectively, Waters) alleging infringement of two patents. Both asserted patents disclose microcalorimeters for measuring the amount of energy absorbed or released during a chemical reaction between two compounds and include independent claims directed to “a micro titration calorimetry system” having several elements, including an automatic pipette assembly that is guided into at least two positions via another component—namely, the disputed “pipette guiding mechanism.”

The pre-grant publication of a commonly assigned but unrelated patent was cited during the prosecution of an unrelated Malvern patent because the examiner understood the disclosure of that patent to recite an automated pipette guiding mechanism. The applicant initially tried to rebut the rejections by arguing that the disclosure of that patent recited a “purely passive [pipette] guiding mechanism.” However, after the examiner found the arguments unpersuasive, the applicant simply changed course and argued that the cited reference was not prior art because the publication and unrelated patent had a common assignee.

Malvern then requested supplemental examination of the now asserted patent under 35 U.S.C. § 257. In connection with the supplemental examination, Malvern filed an information disclosure statement (IDS) that included 154 documents, seven of which were office actions from the prosecution of the unrelated patent. Malvern did not describe or characterize the office actions in any way.

Turning back to the litigation, during claim construction proceedings, Malvern argued that “pipette guiding mechanism” should mean a “mechanism that guides the pipette assembly” while Waters argued that it should mean a “mechanism that manually guides the pipette assembly.” The district court concluded that the term “pipette guiding mechanism” was a coined term because Malvern presented no evidence that a “pipette guiding mechanism” was known or readily understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Based on that determination, the district court relied on intrinsic evidence to determine the objective boundaries of the term.

The district court found that the statement made during the prosecution of the unrelated patent was relevant to the claim construction because the asserted and unrelated patents were assigned to Malvern. The district court also considered these statements as having been incorporated into the intrinsic record of the asserted patent because it concluded that Malvern agreed to incorporate the statements when it cited the office actions filed during supplemental examination of the asserted patent. Malvern appealed.

The Federal Circuit explained that it was appropriate to construe the term “pipette guiding mechanism” by looking into the individual meanings of the words “pipette,” “guiding” and “mechanism.” The Court indicated that when the patentee [...]

Continue Reading



read more

The End Is Not So Near: Patent Term Adjustments Count in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Determinations

by | Sep 7, 2023 |

Addressing for the first time how patent term adjustments (PTAs) interact with obviousness-type double patenting (ODP), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that when members of a patent family have different expiration dates due to PTAs, the earlier expiring family members can be used as a basis for an ODP invalidity challenge against the later expiring family members. In re Cellect, LLC, Case Nos. 2022-1293; -1294; -1295; -1296 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2023) (Lourie, Dyk, Reyna, JJ.)

Cellect owns several patents directed to devices with image sensors, such as personal digital assistant devices and phones. Each patent claims priority from a single application. None of the patents were subject to a terminal disclaimer, and each was granted PTA under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b) because of PTO delay during prosecution. Had the patents not been granted PTA, each one would have expired on the same date as the original application.

After Cellect sued for infringement, the defendant requested ex parte reexaminations and asserted that the patents were unpatentable based on ODP. During the reexaminations, the Examiner “determin[ed] that the challenged claims were obvious variants of Cellect’s prior-expiring reference patent claims” because “although the ODP invalidating reference patents form a network across the four ex parte reexamination proceedings, all invalidated claims can be traced back to the single family member [now expired] patent that did not receive a grant of PTA.” The Patent Trial & Appeal Board affirmed the Examiner’s finding. Cellect appealed.

The Federal Circuit began with the inquiry for determining unpatentability based on ODP and whether, in that context, a patent’s expiration date includes a duly granted PTA under 35 U.S.C. § 154. While the Court recognized that the relevant expiration date for an ODP analysis where a patent received a patent term extension (PTE) is the pre-PTE expiration date, the Court concluded that, in the context of patents that have received PTAs, the relevant expiration date for analyzing ODP is the expiration date accounting for the PTA regardless of whether a terminal disclaimer has been filed. The Court reasoned that when determining whether claims are unpatentable for ODP, PTA and PTE, they “should be treated differently” because each is governed by different statutes that were designed to address different circumstances. While both PTAs and PTEs were intended to recover lost patent terms, PTAs were designed to extend patent terms because of administrative delays in patent processing and preclude the extension of a patent term past a terminal disclaimer. PTEs were designed to extend a patent term because of regulatory delays in product approval and are not foreclosed by a terminal disclaimer. As such, the Court reasoned that not contemplating a PTA when analyzing ODP would “frustrate the clear intent of Congress” because “when a terminal disclaimer has been entered in a patent subject to PTA, no patent (or claim) may be extended beyond the disclaimed expiration date.”

The Federal Circuit next considered whether examiners are required to consider “equitable concerns” such as good faith when [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Reissue Boat Won’t Float: “Original Patent” Rule Sinks New Floating Grill Claims

by | Jul 20, 2023 |

Addressing the same invention requirement for reissue patents, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision to reject an overly broad reissue application. In re Float‘N’Grill LLC, Case No. 22-1438 (Fed. Cir. July 12, 2023) (Prost, Linn, Cunningham, JJ.)

Float‘N’Grill (FNG) owned a patent directed to a floating device that supports a grill so that users can grill food while in water. The patent’s specification lays out a single embodiment, illustrated in Figure 1 below, which includes a float (20) that has two supports (46, 48), each of which “includes a plurality of magnets” (60) so that the grill can be removably attached to the float:

FNG filed a reissue application that claimed new ways to “more generically” removably attach a grill to the float. In rejecting the reissue claims, the Examiner found that three of the new requested claims required zero magnets, three claims required one magnet, and one claim did not specifically require magnets but referred to a magnet in the preamble. This was in contrast to the issued patent’s only embodiment, which required multiple magnets. The Examiner, therefore, rejected the reissue claims for failure to meet the “original patent” requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 251. The Board affirmed. FNG appealed.

The question on appeal was whether FNG’s newly requested claims complied with § 251. The Federal Circuit explained that the only path to expanding the coverage of an issued patent is through a reissue application, which is subject to § 251’s limitations. Pertinent here, § 251 requires reissue claims to be directed to the same invention disclosed in the original patent. Citing Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions, the Court described the “original patent” requirement as a question of whether the issued patent’s disclosed invention “on its face, explicitly and unequivocally describe[s] the invention as recited in the reissue claims.”

Turning to FNG’s reissue claims, the Federal Circuit agreed with the Board, finding that the new claims were not directed to the same invention as the original patent and thus failed to satisfy § 251. The Court explained that the specification of FNG’s issued patent had just one embodiment, which featured “a plurality of magnets” to removably attach a grill to the floating device. The reissue claims, however, contemplated more general attachments without magnets.

FNG argued that its claims were acceptable under § 251 because the magnets were a “non-essential embodiment” of the invention. The Federal Circuit disagreed for four reasons:

  1. An element of a patent may be deemed essential even if the patent does not explicitly state as much. Thus, the magnets were essential to FNG’s original patent, even if not labeled so.
  2. It is irrelevant that a person of skill in the art may know to replace an original patent element with “some other undisclosed mechanism” to reach the same result. Here, a new way to attach a grill to the [...]

    Continue Reading


read more

Federal Circuit to Revisit Whether KSR Extends to Design Patents

by | Jul 13, 2023 |

Granting a petition for rehearing en banc, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided to revisit the effect of the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in KSR International v. Teleflex on design patents. LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations, Case No. 21-2348 (Fed. Cir. June 30, 2023) (per curiam). The Federal Circuit withdrew its earlier panel decision addressing KSR’s application to design patents.

This case arose from an inter partes review (IPR) filed by LKQ against GM alleging that GM’s design patent for a vehicle fender was obvious and/or anticipated. In its original opinion, the Federal Circuit applied its predecessor court’s design patent test for obviousness in In re Rosen (CCPA 1982), as well as its decision in Durling v. Spectrum Furniture (Fed. Cir. 1996), ultimately finding that GM’s design patent was not obvious or anticipated and affirming the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s decision. The Federal Circuit determined that it was unclear whether the Supreme Court had overruled Durling and Rosen with KSR, so it did not apply KSR. Judge Lourie provided an additional opinion that KSR did not overrule Rosen. Judge Stark concurred in the judgment but found that LKQ had forfeited its argument that KSR overruled Rosen.

In its order for en banc review, the Federal Circuit asked the parties to address whether KSR abrogates Rosen and Durling and whether KSR applies to design patents regardless of whether it overrules or abrogates Rosen and Durling. Specifically, the Court inquired whether KSR’s “expansive and flexible approach” means that Durling’s two requirements should be modified or eliminated. Durling’s first requirement is that “[b]efore one can begin to combine prior art designs . . . one must find a single reference, ‘a something in existence, the design characteristics of which are basically the same as the claimed design.’” Its second requirement is that secondary references “may only be used to modify the primary reference if they are ‘so related to the primary reference that the appearance of certain ornamental features in one would suggest the application of those features to the other.’”

The Federal Circuit also asked the parties to address the appropriate test for evaluating the obviousness of design patents in the event the Rosen-Durling test was to be eliminated or modified.

The Federal Circuit further requested that the parties address whether eliminating the Rosen-Durling test would cause uncertainty in a settled area of law. Finally, the Court asked whether any differences between design patents and utility patents are relevant to the design patent obviousness inquiry.

The Federal Circuit indicated that the issues of anticipation and forfeiture from the initial appeal were preserved, but that additional briefing on those issues was not required. The Court invited the United States to participate as amicus curiae.

Practice Note: With the Federal Circuit granting rehearing en banc, there is a possibility that the Court may extend the obviousness analysis of KSR to design patents.



read more

PTO Proposes Patent Fee Increases

by | May 4, 2023 |

The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) announced proposed patent fee increases. Patent fees would increase by about 5% across the board because of inflation.

Certain fees would be increased by substantially more than the 5% inflationary increase to reduce subsidization from other fee sources. For example, the overall design patent fees would increase by 48%, based on a 27% increase in filing, search and examination fees and a 76% issue fee increase. The PTO also proposes a 100% increase in the excess claim fee for each claim over 20, and a 25% increase in the fee for each independent claim over three. Because the costs of reviewing patent term extensions is complex, the PTO proposes fee increases of 196% to 468%. The PTO also proposes a fee of $500 for filing an After Final Consideration Pilot (AFCP) 2.0 request, and new fees for filing an information disclosure statement (IDS) that causes the number of applicant-provided citations to exceed 50, 100 or 200 citations, respectively.

To offset the loss of future maintenance fee payments, the PTO proposes fees of $1,500 for continuing applications filed more than three years from the earliest benefit date and $3,000 for continuing applications filed more than seven years from the earliest benefit date.

Other proposed fee increases are intended to expedite the patent examination process. For example, the PTO proposes a 25% increase in the fee for a second request for continued examination (RCE) and an 80% increase for a third or subsequent RCE. The fee for a terminal disclaimer filed after the first action on the merits and before a final rejection would increase by 194%. After a final rejection or notice of allowance, the fee would increase by 371%. On or after a notice of appeal, the increase would be 547%, and the proposed increase for filing a terminal disclaimer in an issued patent would be 724%.

The PTO further proposes increasing Patent Trial & Appeal Board America Invents Act (AIA) trial fees by 25%. The PTO also proposes new fees for inter partes review (IPR) and post grant review (PGR) petitions that exceed the word count limits. For example, the PTO proposes a 50% higher fee for petitions that exceed the word count limit by up to 50%, and a 100% higher fee for those that exceed the limit by up to 100%.

A public hearing is scheduled for May 18, 2023. Those wishing to present oral testimony at the hearing must submit a written request by May 11, 2023. Written comments on the proposed fees will be accepted until May 25, 2023.

The PTO anticipates that the fee changes will be implemented around January 2025.

More details, including a complete list of the proposed fee increases, can be found on the PTO website.



read more

Branding Function Patent Yet Another 1[01] to Bite the Dust

by | Apr 20, 2023 |

Addressing the patentability of claims directed to digital image branding functions, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s determination that claims across three related patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for lacking patent-eligible subject matter. Sanderling Mgmt. Ltd. v. Snap Inc., Case No. 21-2173 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2023) (Chen, Cunningham, Stark, JJ.)

Sanderling owns three patents, each titled “Dynamic Promotional Layout Management and Distribution Rules.”  The three patents share a common specification and are generally directed to a method using distribution rules to load digital imaging branding functions to users when certain conditions are met. The specification explains that a distribution rule is “a rule used in determining how to target a group of end users, for instance, a rule that determines that only a group of end users having certain characteristics and/or match a certain requirement.”

Sanderling asserted each of the three patents against Snap in the Northern District of Illinois. Snap moved to transfer venue to the Central District of California and to dismiss the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim based on the allegation that the asserted patents’ claimed ineligible subject matter under § 101. After the case was transferred, the Central District of California found the claims patent ineligible and granted Snap’s motion to dismiss. Sanderling appealed.

The Federal Circuit reviewed the decision by engaging in the two-step Alice framework for subject matter eligibility. Under step one, the Court determined that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of providing information—in this case, a processing function—based on meeting a condition (e.g., matching a GPS location indication with a geographic location). The Court explained that for computer-related inventions, the relevant question is whether the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality or to an abstract idea. The Court found that the claims in issue were not directed to an improvement in computer functionality, but instead to the use of computers as a tool—specifically, a tool to identify when a condition is met and then to distribute information based on satisfaction of that condition.

Even if directed to an abstract idea, patent claims may still be eligible under step two of the Alice framework if there are additional features that constitute an inventive concept. The Federal Circuit, however, found that the claims failed this step also. The Court explained that if a claim’s only inventive concept is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea. The distribution rule of the asserted claims was just that: the application of the abstract idea using common computer components. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the district court’s decision that the patent claims were invalid under § 101.

Practice Note: On appeal, Sanderling argued that the district court erred at step one of the Alice analyses by failing to construe certain claim terms that were allegedly crucial to the determination. [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES