$SFOR Alice / § 101 - Today / Monday ~ A recent(F
Post# of 82686
(Total Views: 487)
Posted On: 03/23/2018 6:29:06 AM
$SFOR Alice / § 101 - Today / Monday ~ A recent(Feb 2018) decision called Berkheimer v. HP @ http://jmp.sh/AdxOBXb may make it much harder to defend a case using Alice. In Berkheimer, the district court invalidated a patent that described a system for “archiving and outputting documents.”
But the district court judge was overturned on appeal, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that whether or not a technology was “well-understood, routine, and conventional” is a factual determination that requires more proceedings.
In recent past few weeks - Important statement from the Federal Circuit on the factual underpinnings of the eligibility analysis i.e.
The decision penned by Judge Moore partially vacates the lower court’s summary judgment of ineligibility. In particular, the court affirmed ineligibility of claims 1-3 and 9 of Steven Berkheimer’s U.S. Patent No. 7,447,713, but found that dependent claims 4-7 were not proven ineligible.
The short decision by Judge Moore and joined by Judges Taranto and Stoll is in substantial tension with prior treatment of eligibility analysis that has generally permitted resolution of the issue on the pleadings as a pure question of law. The decision’s unsatisfying distinguishing point is that the court’s prior practice “demonstrate that not every Section 101 determination contains genuine diputes over the underlying facts material to the Section 101 inquiry.”
Senior Judges of the Federal Circuit For the HP Case
But the district court judge was overturned on appeal, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that whether or not a technology was “well-understood, routine, and conventional” is a factual determination that requires more proceedings.
In recent past few weeks - Important statement from the Federal Circuit on the factual underpinnings of the eligibility analysis i.e.
Quote:
While patent eligibility is ultimately a question of law, the district court erred in concluding there are no underlying factual questions to the § 101 inquiry. Whether something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination.
The decision penned by Judge Moore partially vacates the lower court’s summary judgment of ineligibility. In particular, the court affirmed ineligibility of claims 1-3 and 9 of Steven Berkheimer’s U.S. Patent No. 7,447,713, but found that dependent claims 4-7 were not proven ineligible.
The short decision by Judge Moore and joined by Judges Taranto and Stoll is in substantial tension with prior treatment of eligibility analysis that has generally permitted resolution of the issue on the pleadings as a pure question of law. The decision’s unsatisfying distinguishing point is that the court’s prior practice “demonstrate that not every Section 101 determination contains genuine diputes over the underlying facts material to the Section 101 inquiry.”
Senior Judges of the Federal Circuit For the HP Case
(12)
(0)