Same Judges, Same Federal Court of Appeals will ju
Post# of 82690
(Total Views: 1126)
Posted On: 04/30/2018 10:16:09 AM
Same Judges, Same Federal Court of Appeals will judge on our case!!
WOW!!! Great find ZPaul!!! It was also the same Judge that just got SHOT DOWN in this case!
Another § 101 Motion Bites The Dust: Existence Of Potential Factual Determinations Precludes Motion To Dismiss
by Orrick - IP Landscape
Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, C.D. Cal. (April 11, 2018) (Judge John A. Kronstadt)
Following on the heels of the Federal Circuit’s rulings in Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018), a court in the Central District of California recently denied a motion to dismiss based on 35 U.S.C § 101 Alice-type patent ineligibility arguments. In Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, the court rejected Hulu’s motion to dismiss, finding, among other things, that the issue of whether the patent recited a protectable inventive concept was a question of fact that could not be resolved at the motion to dismiss stage.
The Sound View court’s ruling indicates that the recent Federal Circuit decisions in Berkheimer and Aatrix Software may indeed have signaled a trend towards courts rejecting early § 101 motions. The challenged claims were directed to methods of improving how computers operate, the types of technology which already had been viewed as more patentable under the Alice two part test, as set forth in DDR Holdings v. Hotels.Com, L.P.., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and Enfish v. Microsoft, 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Sound View court considered the patent specification, the allegations in the amended complaint, and the language of the asserted claims together—instead of just considering the technical subject matter of the patent. This type of detailed analysis at the motion to dismiss stage suggests that courts are starting to more carefully scrutinize § 101 motions, and may be inclined to defer judgment on patentability determinations until after the factual record in the case has been developed.
Defendants who are thinking of asserting § 101 motions to dismiss should be mindful of this growing trend against granting such motions, and attempt in their motions to establish that there can be no factual basis for a finding other than that the claims are unpatentable.
Too late for you SecureAuth!! You got your desired merger in December as a result of Alice. She is now leaving for Wonderland BUT YOU'RE NOT!! Now it will be time to pay the SFOR piper!!
WOW!!! Great find ZPaul!!! It was also the same Judge that just got SHOT DOWN in this case!
Another § 101 Motion Bites The Dust: Existence Of Potential Factual Determinations Precludes Motion To Dismiss
by Orrick - IP Landscape
Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, C.D. Cal. (April 11, 2018) (Judge John A. Kronstadt)
Following on the heels of the Federal Circuit’s rulings in Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018), a court in the Central District of California recently denied a motion to dismiss based on 35 U.S.C § 101 Alice-type patent ineligibility arguments. In Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, the court rejected Hulu’s motion to dismiss, finding, among other things, that the issue of whether the patent recited a protectable inventive concept was a question of fact that could not be resolved at the motion to dismiss stage.
The Sound View court’s ruling indicates that the recent Federal Circuit decisions in Berkheimer and Aatrix Software may indeed have signaled a trend towards courts rejecting early § 101 motions. The challenged claims were directed to methods of improving how computers operate, the types of technology which already had been viewed as more patentable under the Alice two part test, as set forth in DDR Holdings v. Hotels.Com, L.P.., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and Enfish v. Microsoft, 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Sound View court considered the patent specification, the allegations in the amended complaint, and the language of the asserted claims together—instead of just considering the technical subject matter of the patent. This type of detailed analysis at the motion to dismiss stage suggests that courts are starting to more carefully scrutinize § 101 motions, and may be inclined to defer judgment on patentability determinations until after the factual record in the case has been developed.
Defendants who are thinking of asserting § 101 motions to dismiss should be mindful of this growing trend against granting such motions, and attempt in their motions to establish that there can be no factual basis for a finding other than that the claims are unpatentable.
Too late for you SecureAuth!! You got your desired merger in December as a result of Alice. She is now leaving for Wonderland BUT YOU'RE NOT!! Now it will be time to pay the SFOR piper!!
(11)
(0)