WHY KNOBBE MARTENS (SECUREAUTH LAWFIRM) JUST LOST
Post# of 82686
(Total Views: 492)
Posted On: 11/29/2018 12:58:00 PM
WHY KNOBBE MARTENS (SECUREAUTH LAWFIRM) JUST LOST THE HTC CASE & HOW IT MIRRORS THE SFOR CASE. ROPES & GRAY IS GOING FOR THE THROAT HERE BECAUSE THE PRECEDENT IS SO CLOSE:
Ancora brought this action against HTC America and HTC Corporation in 2016 , alleging infringement of the ’941 patent. HTC moved to dismiss on the ground that the patent’s claims are invalid because their subject matter is ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C § 101 . The district court granted HTC’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the claims are directed to, and ultimately claim no more than, an abstract idea. We reverse . Under Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and related authorities, we conclude, the claims at issue here are not directed to ineligible subject matter . Rather, we hold, the claimed advance is a concrete assignment of specified functions among a computer’s components to improve computer security , and this claimed improvement in computer functionality is eligible for patenting . As a result, the claims are not invalid under § 101 .
Review it for yourself here:
https://jumpshare.com/v/G9TNq1b75zZRwoRQiIG8
Ancora brought this action against HTC America and HTC Corporation in 2016 , alleging infringement of the ’941 patent. HTC moved to dismiss on the ground that the patent’s claims are invalid because their subject matter is ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C § 101 . The district court granted HTC’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the claims are directed to, and ultimately claim no more than, an abstract idea. We reverse . Under Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and related authorities, we conclude, the claims at issue here are not directed to ineligible subject matter . Rather, we hold, the claimed advance is a concrete assignment of specified functions among a computer’s components to improve computer security , and this claimed improvement in computer functionality is eligible for patenting . As a result, the claims are not invalid under § 101 .
Review it for yourself here:
https://jumpshare.com/v/G9TNq1b75zZRwoRQiIG8
(11)
(0)