Although parties continue to file Requests for Rehearing of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision, none have yet succeeded in changing the outcome. According to Docket Navigator (www.docketnavigator.com), to date, 19 motions for rehearing of the Final Written Decision have been filed. Only one, in McLinton Energy Group, LLC v. Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd., IPR 2013-00231, has been granted. Unfortunately for the patent owner in that case, although the request for rehearing was granted and the Board agreed to reconsider its Final Decision, it ultimately declined to make any modification.
Continue Reading Will Anyone Succeed on a Request for Rehearing of a Final Written Decision?
Digital Rights Patent Declared Patent Eligible Under DDR Holdings
Prior t
o the Federal Circuit’s opinion in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014), software and Internet patents seemed on a relentless march towards ineligibility. The Federal Circuit’s decision in DDR Holdings tapped the brakes on this skid towards elimination, and suggested that claims to the implementation of long established economic practices on computers might survive where those claims focused on overcoming obstacles in the implementing technologies themselves.
Continue Reading Digital Rights Patent Declared Patent Eligible Under DDR Holdings
Apple Argues to Federal Circuit a Stay of Litigation in Favor of CBM
In appealing the denial of its request that further litigation in the Eastern District of Texas be stayed in favor of recently instituted CBM review, Apple has urged the Federal Circuit to ignore the fact that trial had already occurred, and a jury verdict rendered, in the Texas action. In its appeal brief, Apple argues that it was unfairly denied a stay that was granted to other parties facing litigation on the same patents who have yet to proceed to trial.
Continue Reading Apple Argues to Federal Circuit a Stay of Litigation in Favor of CBM
Petitioners Are Not Faring Well on 112-challenges in CBM Review
The transitional program for covered business method (CBM) patents is a review proceeding administered by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to reconsider the patentability of one or more claims in a CBM patent. 
Petitioners seeking CBM review have enjoyed good success in knocking out claims for reciting subject matter ineligible for a patent. They have not, however, enjoyed similar success when challenging claims under 35 USC § 112 (concerning clarity, enablement, or written description).
Continue Reading Petitioners Are Not Faring Well on 112-challenges in CBM Review
PTAB Cancels Metasearch Patents Under Section 101, Rejecting Arguments
On May 22, 2015, the PTAB issued its final written decision in American Express Co. v. Lunenfeld, CBM2014-00050 (Paper 51), canceling six claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,239,451 directed to online metasearching. The PTAB decided that all six claims are unpatentable under 35 USC § 101, and obvious under 35 USC § 103. The PTAB characterized the ‘452 Patent as directed to the abstract idea of searching for travel information from multiple sources and ordering travel items from the combined search results.
Continue Reading PTAB Cancels Metasearch Patents Under Section 101, Rejecting Arguments