Investors Hangout Stock Message Boards Logo
  • Mailbox
  • Favorites
  • Boards
    • The Hangout
    • NASDAQ
    • NYSE
    • OTC Markets
    • All Boards
  • Whats Hot!
    • Recent Activity
    • Most Viewed Boards
    • Most Viewed Posts
    • Most Posted
    • Most Followed
    • Top Boards
    • Newest Boards
    • Newest Members
  • Blog
    • Recent Blog Posts
    • Recently Updated
    • News
    • Stocks
    • Crypto
    • Investing
    • Business
    • Markets
    • Economy
    • Real Estate
    • Personal Finance
  • Market Movers
  • Interactive Charts
  • Login - Join Now FREE!
  1. Home ›
  2. Stock Message Boards ›
  3. Stock Boards ›
  4. Zerify Inc (ZRFY) Message Board

This is what motion 101 is Strategies for Li

Message Board Public Reply | Private Reply | Keep | Replies (0)                   Post New Msg
Edit Msg () | Previous | Next


Post# of 82686
(Total Views: 328)
Posted On: 12/02/2017 4:18:48 PM
Posted By: Pugilista
Re: toxzl2 #10173
This is what motion 101 is


Strategies for Litigants in Patent Infringement Cases Using Motions to Dismiss Post-Alice

April 19, 2017

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Douglas R. Nemec, Leslie A. Demers, Edward L. Tulin














Nearly three years have passed since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on patent eligibility in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l. The decision, which ushered in an unprecedented wave of cases invalidating computer-based patents at the litigation pleading stage, was met with mixed reactions: Some lauded it as a powerful weapon against patent assertion entities, but others lamented that it is one more blow to the foundation of the patent system. In practice, it has opened the door to a quick and efficient disposition of patent cases in a way that did not exist before the decision. An analysis of the hundreds of post-Alice cases addressing motions to dismiss under Section 101 of the Patent Act reveals important trends that can inform strategies for both plaintiffs and defendants in patent infringement suits.

Success Rate of Motions to Dismiss Down but Still Higher Than Pre-Alice

In Alice, the Supreme Court addressed what subject matter is patentable and held that claims directed to abstract ideas alone are not patent-eligible.

The volume of Section 101-based motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows a court to “throw out” a case early, has increased each year since Alice was decided in June 2014, leading one federal district court to note that Alice opened "the proverbial motions practice floodgates" such that Section 101 is "being litigated daily (if not hourly) in federal courts across the country."

While the number of motions to dismiss has continued to climb, the rate at which courts are granting dismissal has decreased, falling from 71 percent in 2015 to 53 percent in 2016, according to an analysis of roughly 150 federal district court decisions.



The decreasing success of these motions mirrors a similar trend in instituting inter partes review (IPR) in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board since 2012. Just as the first IPR decisions often involved patents that were extremely susceptible to prior art-based challenges, it appears that the early post-Alice Section 101 challenges may have likewise targeted the most vulnerable patents. Given the relatively low cost of bringing motions to dismiss, however, it is unlikely that the volume of these motions will decrease significantly in the near term.

Though district courts are granting motions to dismiss at a lower rate, the grant rate varies substantially from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, as does the grant rate for summary judgment motions on the same grounds. The three most active venues for motions regarding eligibility of computer-based patent claims are the U.S. district courts for the District of Delaware, Eastern District of Texas and Central District of California.



Based on the statistical analysis, the best chance of succeeding on a motion to dismiss such claims in the most active districts is in the District of Delaware, while the best chance of doing so at the summary judgment stage is in the Central District of California. And while the Eastern District of Texas has been the least receptive to motions to dismiss of the most active districts, it also is the least likely to find claims valid at the Rule 12 stage, minimizing the risk of challenging such patent claims there through a motion to dismiss. Because defendants can avoid the high cost of discovery and legal fees with a successful motion to dismiss, an early case-dispositive motion may be an attractive option here.

Litigants with this knowledge can make better-informed decisions regarding where to file infringement suits, whether to challenge the subject matter eligibility of computer-based claims and when to do so.

Strategies for Litigants

The use of motions to dismiss by defendants accused of infringing computer-based claims is likely here to stay, and several guiding principles for both plaintiffs and defendants have emerged.

In denying Section 101 motions to dismiss computer-based patent claims, courts have either determined that claim construction — which defines the scope and meaning of a patent — is necessary to resolve the Section 101 challenge, or dismissed the motion without prejudice to developing Section 101 arguments later in the case.

Although patent owners have had mixed results in raising issues of claim construction to avoid an ineligibility determination at the motion to dismiss phase, those issues can allow the court to sidestep the Alice analysis in its entirety. The best chance of success for patent owners tends to be portraying the parties as engaged in a fundamental dispute over the basic character and coverage of the patent claims and/or adopting a specific and detailed claim construction argument based on expert testimony.

However, patent owners should be mindful of potential pitfalls if they attempt to raise claim construction as a threshold barrier to dismissal. Defendants could portray these arguments as an improper attempt to sidestep the Section 101 analysis by demonstrating how claim construction would not change that analysis. Defendants also could fault plaintiffs that do not propose particular constructions but still argue that claim construction would be an essential predicate step to the Section 101 analysis. If plaintiffs propose a construction, defendants could moot plaintiffs' calls for claim construction by accepting plaintiffs' proposed construction and arguing that the claims are still invalid under Section 101.

In addition to arguments relating to claim construction, parties should devote a significant portion of their written submissions to a discussion of how their case is analogous to (or distinct from) the limited number of post-Alice U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decisions that have found computer-based claims to be valid. Although patent litigants often cite Federal Circuit precedent regarding claim construction or invalidity, many litigants are often reluctant to rely too heavily on factual analogies. That conventional wisdom does not apply in the context of Section 101 challenges. Indeed, two-thirds of the district court cases finding computer-based claims valid at the motion to dismiss stage in 2015 and 2016 specifically analogized the factual content of the claims at issue or the plaintiff's underlying rationale to those in Federal Circuit decisions.

Conclusion

The initial post-Alice deluge of decisions granting motions to dismiss computer-based patent infringement claims has subsided somewhat — defendants today have only slightly better than a 50 percent chance of invalidating such claims based on Section 101 at the motion to dismiss stage of litigation. That said, there is little risk of bringing Section 101 challenges early in the litigation, as courts rarely find patents eligible at that stage. Though it may be statistically more difficult to succeed on a motion to dismiss than it was two years ago, patentees should still consider vulnerabilities on eligibility early. Infringement defendants, meanwhile, should focus on minimizing issues of claim construction and factually distinguishing the claims asserted in their cases from those in the few Federal Circuit opinions finding that the subject matter is eligible for patent protection.


(1)
(0)




Zerify Inc (ZRFY) Stock Research Links


  1.  
  2.  


  3.  
  4.  
  5.  






Investors Hangout

Home

Mailbox

Message Boards

Favorites

Whats Hot

Blog

Settings

Privacy Policy

Terms and Conditions

Disclaimer

Contact Us

Whats Hot

Recent Activity

Most Viewed Boards

Most Viewed Posts

Most Posted Boards

Most Followed

Top Boards

Newest Boards

Newest Members

Investors Hangout Message Boards

Welcome To Investors Hangout

Stock Message Boards

American Stock Exchange (AMEX)

NASDAQ Stock Exchange (NASDAQ)

New York Stock Exchange (NYSE)

Penny Stocks - (OTC)

User Boards

The Hangout

Private

Global Markets

Australian Securities Exchange (ASX)

Euronext Amsterdam (AMS)

Euronext Brussels (BRU)

Euronext Lisbon (LIS)

Euronext Paris (PAR)

Foreign Exchange (FOREX)

Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKEX)

London Stock Exchange (LSE)

Milan Stock Exchange (MLSE)

New Zealand Exchange (NZX)

Singapore Stock Exchange (SGX)

Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX)

Contact Investors Hangout

Email Us

Follow Investors Hangout

Twitter

YouTube

Facebook

Market Data powered by QuoteMedia. Copyright © 2025. Data delayed 15 minutes unless otherwise indicated (view delay times for all exchanges).
Analyst Ratings & Earnings by Zacks. RT=Real-Time, EOD=End of Day, PD=Previous Day. Terms of Use.

© 2025 Copyright Investors Hangout, LLC All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy |Do Not Sell My Information | Terms & Conditions | Disclaimer | Help | Contact Us