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
In a development that sounds suspiciously like someone who’s writing computer games for the Nintendo Wii is also following patent litigation, the 2013 game The Wonderful 101 contains a principal character named “Alice”, who is the main operator of the game heroes’ state of the art warship. Here’s what we are told about Alice.
“Talented in ship controls and cannon warfare, the daring maneuvers Alice takes to save the ship from crisis often leave the rest of the team speechless. . . . She never says more than is absolutely required and her expression never reveals her true emotions, which has the unfortunate side-effect of making her look hard to approach to others.”
Well if that isn’t a good description of the caselaw on patentable subject matter, I don’t know what is. At least we now have an avatar for Alice motions. (Note to self: see if Shipping & Transit has a app out called Inequitable Conductors).
There have been a number recent cases on 101 motions from EDTX courts, and I wanted to review them today, so be looking for posts as the day goes on.
They aren’t quite as near and dear to my heart as JMOL rulings, but pretrial rulings are a close second. The parties the ground rules for the conduct of the trial, including limine rulings, orders resolving the inevitable disputes over admissibility of expert testimony, and rulings on any summary judgment motions that remain outstanding. The seven rulings from this case, which is set for trial in only a few weeks, are a pretty good example of the genre. Below are copies of the rulings with analysis.
Last week Judge Gilstrap ruled on another set of 101 motions, this time by defendant J. Crew Group against plaintiff Intellectual Ventures. The Court granted the motion as to two of the three patents, finding that both were directed at patent-ineligible subject matter. The Court found that the third was not, however.