Fenwick & West’s BilskiBlog had a good summary of the state of 101 caselaw as of the end of Q1 2017 yesterday. Most notable to me was their observation of the pronounced change in grant rates for 101 motions in patent-heavy district in the last six months.
They compared grant rates from mid-2014 through the third quarter of 2016, and then over the past six months, uncovering two significant trends. First, the three top districts in terms of rulings that are not the EDTX had grant rates from 65-74%, but those rates dropped dramatically to 18-40% in the last six months. Excluding CD Cal and only looking at the double digit districts, the rate is 18-25%.
In contrast to its 31.9% grant rate from 2014-2016, however, the EDTX grant rate for 101 motions the last six months has increased to 75%, with 12 of 16 motions being granted. That is over three times the grant rate in D Del and ND Cal, which are currently at 23%.
The reason for the spike appears to be a batch of grants in March 2017, but the post recognizes that the overall national trend is a downward one nonetheless.
Yes, Mr. “Twin Peaks” Giant, it is happening again. Another 101 motion has been granted … in part. And even by the same judge (and almost the same day). In this case,
Two patents and six defendants – are the asserted claims invalid as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) or not?
Well, yes, in part. In this case,
Okay, I know the Nintendo Wii “Wonderful 101” and “Alice” images are getting tired, so I just wanted to let readers know in advance that I won’t be using them for the two significant 101 rulings that I’m about to post about. Even though they are pretty wonderful…
I am going to have to license the graphics from Nintendo’s Wonderful 101 and it’s character Alice before this spring is out because they are in pretty heavy rotation with all the 101 rulings coming out. This morning’s focuses, as the opinions all do, on whether the claims are more analogous to the cases where patentable subject matter was found, or where it wasn’t, in, for example, Enfish.
In this case,
Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under FRCP 12(c) alleging lack of patentable subject matter in this case, and asked the Court to invalidate the asserted claims on the basis that they are directed to the abstract idea of “offering, tracking, and processing discounts”—a concept Defendants contended is a longstanding commercial practice.
In its opinion, the Court
It’s been a busy spring for 101 grants over at the courthouse. This morning I saw another order, this time granting motions by six defendants to dismiss 974 claims in ten patents under 101 in a case involving patents dealing with financial services, but with a few twists we haven’t seen in other recent orders, including the effect of prior Markman rulings and 101 rulings involving the same patents. Both are addressed in my analysis below. The case involves
A latecomer to the 101 analysis, but these orders just keep coming out… Earlier this month Judge Payne recommended dismissal of a patent for on 101 grounds in a consolidated case. He has now issued orders (exemplar below the link, as well as the original) extending that dismissal to the consolidated defendants. The cases arise out of litigation
A few weeks after Judge Gilstrap’s order in September 2015 dismissing the 101 defendant eDekka litigation on 101 grounds, Magistrate Judge Love recommended granting a similar motion in the Rothschild Location Technologies cases on January 4, 2016 – a recommendation that Judge Schroeder adopted several weeks later. That litigation originally involved around three dozen defendants. Judge Schroeder recently denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration in light of the “101 spring” line of cases from the Federal Circuit in 2016 (Enfish et al.) which did not affirm district courts’ decisions to dismiss cases on 101 grounds. In his opinion, Judge Schroeder
In a recent opinion resolving a 101 defense via a motion to dismiss, an EDTX court noted that “Although procedure is often slighted in the context of § 101 motions, the Court does not take invalidating a patent at the pleading stage lightly.” Nonetheless, it concluded that the motion was well-taken and recommending invalidating the asserted claims. It was a dark and stormy night at the courthouse when