Patent office with evidence invalidating
The Federal Circuit has thus reaffirmed that patent eligibility under Section 101 is a question of law resting on underlying facts.Although summary judgment of ineligibility has been and may continue to be appropriate in some cases, Berkheimer makes clear that summary judgment is not appropriate in all cases, particularly when the underlying material facts regarding the novelty or inventiveness of the claimed invention are in dispute.No actual infringement is required nor is any cessation of royalty payments.Here, jurisdiction was simple because the patent holder had threatened to assert its rights if Adenta failed to pay royalties — “thereby creating a substantial controversy.” Evidence of 102(b) Public Use: Under the CAFC’s “rules of evidence,” ., the Supreme Court made clear that declaratory judgment jurisdiction is much broader than allowed by CAFC precedent.In particular, the court rejected the CAFC’s requirement that a DJ plaintiff show a “reasonable apprehension of suit.” Under the court’s newly developed precedent, Article III jurisdiction will arise when a patentee asserts its patent rights against another party’s activity or planned activity.
Despite the patentee’s attempts to discredit the evidence, the CAFC found that the corroboration threshold was met and that the fact finder had not committed clear error in evaluating the totality of the evidence.To learn more about how the Federal Circuit's ruling in Berkheimer may impact your IP and other business operations, please contact any member of Dentons' Intellectual Property and Technology practice. The district court also held, and the Federal Circuit affirmed, that claims 1019 are invalid as indefinite. Dentons is the world's first polycentric global law firm.The Federal Circuit's indefiniteness analysis is also worth noting. Based on this evidence, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court' s summary judgment of indefiniteness, while making clear that its decision does not mean that all terms of degree are necessarily indefinite. A top 20 firm on the Acritas 2015 Global Elite Brand Index, the Firm is committed to challenging the status quo in delivering consistent and uncompromising quality and value in new and inventive ways.Claims one through three and nine, the court found, did not recite any limitations regarding the patent's allegedly inventive concept to store, analyze and compare data in an unconventional manner to eliminate redundancies and improve efficiency.Rather, those claims recited parsers, functions and generic computer equipment that the inventor himself admitted had already been known for years prior to his patent.