Software Patents: Federal Circuit

Showing posts with label Federal Circuit. Show all posts

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Software is not Patent Eligible unless Claimed as a Process or Physical Object (US Federal Circuit)

In an interesting – though non-precedential – opinion, the US Federal Circuit has ruled that a “speech-recognition interface” software lacks subject matter eligibility “because [the claims] are not directed to one of the four statutory categories of inventions identified in 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Recent action in patent eligibility doctrine has primarily focused on the judicial prohibitions against patenting abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena. However the statute does have some meat of its own. In particular, Section 101 particularly creates eligibility for four categories of inventions: processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter. Inventions that cannot fit within the four statutory categories are not patent eligible.

Dennis Crouch | Patently-O

Saturday, May 16, 2015

US Federal Circuit rules company’s TV software patent indefinite

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit cracked down on a vague software patent in a ruling last week. The Federal Circuit, which hears all U.S. patent appeals, affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in two cases brought by EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC.

“Resolution of this case is straightforward,” Chief Judge Sharon Prost wrote in the May 6 opinion. “The district court made explicit factual findings, based on expert testimony, that each of the eight claim terms at issue recited complicated, customized computer software.

“We see no clear error in any of the district court’s factual findings, nor any error in the district court’s ultimate conclusion of indefiniteness.”

Prost noted that EON does not contend on appeal that the terms at issue recite functions that are coextensive with a microprocessor.

EON also does not differentiate between any of the claim terms in its argument, the chief judge said.

“In fact, EON cites to testimony from its expert that a person skilled in the art would need to consult algorithms outside the specification to implement the claimed functions,” she wrote in the 14-page ruling. “Similarly, based on expert testimony, the district court found that ‘special code would have to be written in order to accomplish the claimed functionality.’

Legal Newsline

Thursday, May 14, 2015

Limelight did not infringe Akamai patent

Limelight Networks Inc did not directly infringe a patent on managing Web images and video held by rival Akamai Technologies Inc because it did not carry out all the steps, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Wednesday.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit also said there was no basis to find the media content delivery company and its customers could jointly be held liable for infringement because Limelight was not in direct control of its users.

"Limelight’s customers do not become Limelight’s agents simply because Limelight provides its customers a written manual explaining how to operate Limelight’s product," the appeals court said in a 2-1 majority opinion.

Reuters

Saturday, May 09, 2015

Eon v. AT&T and the role of "Pure Functional Claiming"

The one area where patent-challengers see continued success is when means-plus-function claims lack appropriate structural support in the underlying patent document. 35 U.S.C. 112(f) allows a patentee to claim a “means” for accomplishing a specified function without reciting the actual structure of the mechanism or material used to accomplish the function.

However, as a rule of construction, the statute indicates that the “means” will be construed to “cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” The impact is that, although the claim appears to broadly cover a “function” it will be construed to be much more limited. When an applicant follows this claiming approach, but fails to specify any corresponding structure within the specification then the claim is deemed invalid as indefinite.

In Eon Corp v. AT&T (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal Circuit has affirmed that Eon’s asserted patent claims are invalid for failing to specify the structure associated with a purely functional claim element.

Patently-O

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Don’t Reward the Patent Troll that Lies in Wait

They "think laches should still be available, and here’s why: patent defendants and copyright defendants are in very different positions when it comes to defending against stale claims. Patent defendants, unlike their copyright counterparts, often defend themselves by showing that the patent owner’s claimed invention was obvious at the time of filing (thus making the patent invalid). But by delaying a lawsuit, a patent owner can make it difficult for the defendant to find what was known back when the application was filed; records get lost through the passage of time."

"Laches should exist in patent law, despite the Supreme Court’s decision in Petrella, because this is a place where patent law and copyright law differ. We hope the Federal Circuit recognizes the important differences between copyright law and patent law, and how patent owners, by delaying, seriously impact the ability of an innocent defendant to invalidate bad patents."

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Synopsys Request for Stay of Injunction Denied in Emulator Patent Case

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has denied a motion by Synopsys for a stay, pending appeal, of the injunction issued by an Oregon federal district court against Synopsys emulators. The injunction, issued March 12, prohibits Synopsys, Inc. from making, using, selling, offering to sell, licensing or leasing in the United States any emulators or software that incorporate Mentor Graphics' patented emulation technology covered by U.S. Patent No. 6,240,376.

PRNewswire

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

The Alice in Wonderland En Banc Decision

After the Federal Circuit issued its en banc decision on May 10, 2013 in CLS Bank v. Alice Corp, the patent owner Alice Corp must be feeling like Alice in Alice in Wonderland, bewildered and frightened by the fantastical situation in which they find themselves.

IPWatchdog.com

Thursday, May 31, 2012

Patenting non-tech ideas may get harder

In 2008, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office awarded Ultramercial with Patent No. 7,346,545, describing the process in which a consumer, rather than paying for a product like a video, may “choose to receive such products after viewing and/or interacting with an interposed sponsor’s or advertiser’s message.”

Ultramercial had applied for the patent in 2001. Last week, the Supreme Court set aside an earlier ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that had allowed Ultramercial’s patent and permitted the firm to pursue a lawsuit against WildTangent. The high court told the federal circuit to reconsider its decision.

Michelle Quinn POLITICO.com

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Aristocrat case raises requirements

Aristocrat case raises requirements for means-plus-function ...

The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Aristocrat Technologies will require software patent drafters to take more care to describe algorithms covered by their software - or risk patent invalidity.

More at CNET News.com ...

CLUE's involvement in Internet issues: ICANN, Net Neutrality and ...

While I spoke at IT360 last week on the issue of Software Patents and Free/Libre and Open Source Software, recent interviews and blogging have been focused on the related issues of "Net Neutrality" and competitive access to ...

Pages

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Saturday, May 16, 2015

Thursday, May 14, 2015

Saturday, May 09, 2015

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Thursday, May 31, 2012

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Tuesday, April 08, 2008