-
Federal Circuit Affirms Western District Of Texas’s Order Granting Summary Judgment To Defendant Under § 101
09/06/2023
USC IP Partnership, L.P. (“USC”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Facebook, Inc., succeeded by Meta Platforms, Inc. (collectively, “Meta”), in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. USC accused Meta’s “News Feed” feature of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,645,300 (“the ’300 Patent”). The ’300 Patent claims a method for predicting which webpages to recommend to a web visitor based on inferences of the visitor’s intent by using an “intent engine.” Meta moved for summary judgment of invalidity of all claims of the ’300 Patent on the ground that they are ineligible for patenting, under 35 U.S.C. § 101. A week before trial was scheduled, Judge Alan Albright granted summary judgment. USC IP P’ship, L.P. v. Facebook, Inc., 576 F. Supp. 3d 446 (W.D. Tex. 2021) (“Dist. Ct. Order”).
-
District Of Delaware Finds Patent Claims To Be Patent Ineligible Under Section 101
08/26/2021
On August 12, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion granting plaintiff Microsoft Corporation’s (“Microsoft”) motion for judgment on the pleadings related to infringement counterclaims brought by SynKloud Technologies, LLC (“SynKloud”). SynKloud Techs. LLC v. HP, Inc., et al., No. 19-1360-RGA (D. Del. Aug. 12, 2021). The Court ruled that the patents at issue related to the patent-ineligible abstract idea of “requesting an institution to obtain data from remote locations and to store that data in storage space assigned to a specific user.”
-
Federal Circuit Holds That Patent Owner’s Substitute Claims Presented During IPR Are Subject To A Full Examination
07/28/2020
On July 22, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) denial of a rehearing on a motion to amend the claims of a patent challenged in an inter partes review (IPR). Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC & Netflix, Inc., No. 19-1686, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Jul. 22, 2020). The CAFC held that the PTAB may consider any ground of unpatentability—not just anticipation or obviousness grounds based on patents or printed publications under Section 311(b)—when considering the patentability of substitute claims during an IPR.