#patent-eligibility

#patent-eligibility

Tu Quoque Rejected: The patent owner argued that Google's own video conferencing patents use similar "functional claiming" techniques, and therefore Google must believe such claims are patent-eligible. The Federal Circuit rejected this hypocrisy-style argument, holding that the eligibility of Google's patents "is not before us and has no bearing on our analysis."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday, January 22, issued a precedential decision affirming a district court ruling that granted Google's motion to dismiss a patent owner's infringement suit for failure to state a claim. The CAFC agreed with the district court that the software claims in question were directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. The opinion was authored by CAFC Chief Judge Moore and joined by Judges Hughes and Stoll.

For those in the patent law world who may have been hiding under a rock, we have been flooded recently with lower court rulings on patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 after Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. Like a tsunami, these lower court rulings are uniformly sweeping away any patent in its wake as being directed to merely an "abstract idea" that doesn't provide "something more."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday affirmed a district court decision finding that Technology in Ariscale, LLC's patent for a transmission signal decoding method was patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The opinion was authored by Judge Cunningham. Ariscale first argued to the CAFC that the United States District Court for the Central District of California's characterization of claim 1 of its U.S. Patent No. 8,139,652 as being "directed to receiving, manipulating, and decoding data" constituted error.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced it has updated the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure to reflect recent eligibility guidance; The New York Times has sued Perplexity AI for copyright and trademark infringement; AGs from seven U.S. states sent a letter to the College Sports Commission calling out its "cartoonishly villainous" university participation agreement; Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) made negative remarks about the Commerce Department's proposals on government equity in

The press release sent today emphasized USPTO Director John Squires' commitment since his first day in office to ensuring that emerging technologies will not be hampered by judicial interpretations of U.S. eligibility law that have made it harder to enforce patents. On the day he was sworn in as the 60th USPTO Director, Squires issued the first patents of his term, both in technology sectors that often face increased scrutiny about patent eligibility during patent prosecution and in the courts.

Conventional wisdom is that a good certiorari petition needs to show the legal error below and also show why the case is important and timely. The petition follows this dual framing strategy: (1) a doctrinal claim that the Federal Circuit has abandoned preemption as the touchstone of patent eligibility; and (2) a policy argument tied to what I think of as the "new great game" and what the Trump Administration calls "Winning the AI Race." The case also arrives at the Supreme Court as the USPTO has begun to move aggressively toward limiting its use of eligibility in patent prosecution.

Want to have your doggie(s) featured in one of our future Barks & Bites Columns? Send your dogs photo(s) along with their name, breed (if you know it) and their age to [email protected] . All photos will be added to the IPWatchdog Dog Wall at IPWatchdog Studios and will be added to the queue of images we select from each week.

Chairman Thom Tillis (R-NC) and ranking member Adam Schiff (D-CA) both acknowledged the widespread confusion in current eligibility jurisprudence, with Tillis noting that the status quo "continues to be hopelessly confused" and expressing determination to move the bill forward to committee markup. The Bill has bipartisan support in the Senate, but it is unclear how hard those in opposition would push if the bill started to move forward.

Judge O'Malley, who served on the Federal Circuit from 2010 to 2022 after 16 years in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, was the first former district court judge to be appointed to the Federal Circuit. Her unique perspective as both a trial and appellate judge has continued to shape her views on the judiciary, patent law challenges, and the future of IP.

The petition argues that the panel's holding directly conflicts with the court's precedent in Yu v. Apple Inc., 1 F.4th 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2021) as well as Supreme Court precedent by allowing systems to avoid ineligibility simply by reciting conventional components that perform basic functions at a high degree of generality. The patent in this case seems to me similar to so many others -- it claims a known physical system at a fairly high level of generality and couples that with previously unknown information processing.

Longitude Licensing Ltd. v. Google LLC highlights the ongoing patent eligibility challenges as the Federal Circuit dismisses claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for generic, functional limitations.