Painstaking: Findings and Conclusions on Section 101 Claims

I thought superdetailing the 1/200 CSM and LM for my Apollo 11 Saturn V was painstaking – until I read the attached 32 pages of findings of fact and conclusions of law on a defendant’s assertion that four claims were invalid as being directed toward ineligible subject matter. The Court concluded that one claim was invalid, but the other three were not. If you’re interested in detailed Section 101 analysis – this is the order you want. On the other hand, if you’re interested in scratchbuilt models of NASA hardware … I highly recommend you look into golf or fishing instead.

Section 101 Motion Denied by Newest EDTX Judge

Following the addition of U.S. District Judge Jeremy Kernodle to the Eastern District of Texas bench late last year, most of the Tyler docket, including this case, was reassigned from Judge Gilstrap and Judge Schroeder to Judge Kernodle. Judge Kernodle just entered an order denying the defendant’s renewed motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim which argued that the patents in suit claimed ineligible subject matter.

Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Patentable Subject Matter Granted in Part

Section 101 rulings are always welcome because they show where judges are on specific fact patterns based on the current state of the appellate caselaw.  Normally I’d say that the facts are the variable, not the caselaw, but on this subject the first can vary, and the second can … evolve.  This week provides another data point on 101 rulings, with an opinion that drops findings into the no/no, no/yes, yes, and “nope” categories.