Addressing both the availability of appeal in the absence of a Rule 50(b) motion and the appropriateness of importing limitations from the specification in a 35
Post-trial, TCL moved for renewed judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and a new trial on the damages issues under Fed.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit confronted two issues:
- Whether, by failing to raise the issue in its post-trial JMOL, TCL waived its right to an appeal on the issue of 101 eligibility
- If not, whether the asserted claims were invalid under 101.
The Court concluded that despite not filing a Rule 50(b) motion, TCL had not waived its right to appeal the § 101 issue based in part on the circumstance that the trial court's decision to deny summary judgment was not dependent on any factual issues that would have played out during the trial. In this instance, "the district court did not merely deny summary judgment, [rather] it effectively granted summary judgment in favor of the non-moving party by deciding the issue and leaving nothing left for the jury to decide." Accordingly, a Rule 50(b) motion would have been frivolous. "Once the district court held that the patent was not directed to an abstract idea at step one, there was no set of facts that TCL could have adduced at trial to change that conclusion." The Federal Circuit further relied on its own discretion to hear the issue, regardless of whether it had been waived, explaining that "[w]hile there is 'no general rule' for when we exercise our discretion to reach waived issues, we have done so where, among other factors 'the issue has been fully briefed by the parties,'" as was the case here.
Moving on to the substance of the § 101 issue, the Federal Circuit reversed, finding that the asserted claims were invalid. At step one of the Alice analysis, the Court concluded that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of controlling access to, or limiting permission to, resources. More specifically, the Court determined that the access controller, security access manager, decision entity and interception module elements, as claimed, are actually one and the same. Therefore, "all four components collapse into simply 'an access controller for controlling access' by 'receiving a request' and then 'determining if the request should be granted.'"
Having found that the claims were directed to an abstract idea, the Federal Circuit moved to Alice step two, to determine whether the claimed elements transformed the claims into a patent-eligible application. The Court concluded that they did not.
In dissent,
Practice Note: Both the majority and dissent looked to Federal Circuit precedent and the precedent of the regional circuit to inform the decision regarding waiver. Although the majority ultimately found that no waiver had occurred, both the majority and dissent acknowledged that compelling circumstances are required in order for a circuit court to disregard the rule of waiver in order to hear an issue on appeal. Thus, in the majority of circumstances, it is still necessary to file a Rule 50 motion in order to properly preserve issues for appeal.
Originally published
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr
20001
Tel: 2027568000
Fax: 2027568087
E-mail: jborta-sinn@mwe.com
URL: www.mwe.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2020 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source