In this latest roundup, we look at some recent opinions from around the country, an interesting article discussing the constitutionality of the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act, "My Cousin Vinny" and more.
(Also, a reminder: a reference to a particular case or article does not necessarily mean we agree with what is being proffered; we might just find it interesting.)
This is unsurprising to anyone reading this blog, but the
Earlier year this, the
The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act - Unconstitutional?
This summer, Sens.
Section 101 Patent Eligibility at the ITC
If you want to discuss any of these issues, please reach out directly. Or, better yet, reach out to me so I can make an introduction and confirm that someone is actually reading this far into the blog post.
Let's Talk About Some Recent Cases
Here are a few Section 101 opinions that have been sitting on my desk:
PerformancePartners LLC v.FlashParking, Inc. - In thisWestern District ofTexas case, the Court (Judge Cardone ) invalidated patent claims directed to "managing vehicle access to secured parking areas," which entails 1) monitoring points of access, 2) electronically obtaining characteristics of vehicles, 3) offering "security options" by providing a ticket, 4) obtaining a unique characteristic from each exiting vehicle, 5) allowing exiting vehicles that match the characteristic to exit, while 6) offering other non-matching vehicles a "resolution process."
The Court further found that the assessed claim relied on "generic, conventional technologies to apply the abstract method of managing vehicle access to a secured area."
PowerBlock Holdings, Inc. v. iFit, Inc. - In this District ofUtah case, the Court (Judge Parrish ) invalidated most of the asserted claims of a patent directed to automated dumbbell weight stacking because they, at bottom, claim "substantially all systems for automated dumbbell weight plate stacking involving electric motors and data entry systems and is therefore overly broad."
Most interesting is that the Court found that claim 19 was not properly represented by the other claims because of its "means for" language. The Court declined to construct the claim terms but noted that, by operation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, this claim "may not be subject to the abstraction that ails" the other relevant claims. The Court declined to offer a holding on this claim because the parties had not fully argued the issue.
Fred Bergman Healthcare Pty Ltd. , et al. v. SenecaSense Technologies - In thisNorthern District ofIllinois case (Judge Blakey ), the Court assessed the asserted patent, entitled "Incontinence Management System and Diaper." The defendant argued that the relevant claim is directed to the abstract idea of "receiving and analyzing data to characterize a 'wetness event.'" The Court at Step 1 assessed the parties' arguments - whether the tangible nature of the elements was relevant, the combination of elements, and whether the automatic feature of the claimed invention mattered to patent eligibility. The Court, however, did not make a determination at Step 1 because the claim survived Step 2.
At Step 2, the Court noted that plaintiffs alleged the patent claims "the improvement of a technological process (namely, the improvement of incontinence management technology), not simply an improvement in computational accuracy," and the Court could not, at the Rule 12 stage, concluded that the claimed invention lacked an inventive concept. Therefore, based on the pleadings and intrinsic evidence, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.
Courtroom Month on The Rewatchables Podcast
I have a massive backlog of podcasts, and I have finally started Courtroom Month on The Rewatchables If you like watching movies and then listening to people talk about movies, this podcast might be for you. They discuss some all-time legal greats: "Primal Fear," "A Time to Kill," "My Cousin Vinny," "And Justice for All," "The Devil's Advocate" and "A Few Good Men."
At the top of this mountain is "My Cousin Vinny." This might be a hot take*, but
*My real hot take might be that
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 Anthony Fuga
11th Floor
MA 02116
Tel: 6175232700
Fax: 6175236850
E-mail: webcontent@hklaw.com
URL: www.hklaw.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2023 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source