Why does the Supreme Court want the Berkheimer vs
Post# of 82686
(Total Views: 527)
Posted On: 02/25/2019 9:21:27 PM
Why does the Supreme Court want the Berkheimer vs HP case ASAP? You can read the complete Federal Appeals court decision here:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/fi...2018.1.PDF
A portion of the claims were considered 'abstract' and some were not. Note:
Claims 6–7 depend from claim 5 and accordingly contain
the same limitations. These claims recite a specific
method of archiving that, according to the specification,
provides benefits that improve computer functionality.
HP argues that redundancy and efficiency are considerations in any archival system, including paper-based systems. The district court agreed. At this stage of the case, however, there is at least a genuine issue of material fact in light of
the specification regarding whether claims 4–7 archive
documents in an inventive manner that improves these
aspects of the disclosed archival system. Whether claims
4–7 perform well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities to a skilled artisan is a genuine issue of material fact making summary judgment inappropriate with respect to these claims.
We do not decide today that claims 4–7 are patent eligible under § 101. We only decide that on this record summary judgment was improper, given the fact questions created by the specification’s disclosure.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district
court’s decision that claims 10–19 of the ’713 patent are
invalid as indefinite and its grant of summary judgment
that claims 1–3 and 9 of the ’713 patent are ineligible
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We vacate the district court’s
grant of summary judgment that claims 4–7 are ineligible
under § 101 and remand for further proceedings.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/fi...2018.1.PDF
A portion of the claims were considered 'abstract' and some were not. Note:
Claims 6–7 depend from claim 5 and accordingly contain
the same limitations. These claims recite a specific
method of archiving that, according to the specification,
provides benefits that improve computer functionality.
HP argues that redundancy and efficiency are considerations in any archival system, including paper-based systems. The district court agreed. At this stage of the case, however, there is at least a genuine issue of material fact in light of
the specification regarding whether claims 4–7 archive
documents in an inventive manner that improves these
aspects of the disclosed archival system. Whether claims
4–7 perform well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities to a skilled artisan is a genuine issue of material fact making summary judgment inappropriate with respect to these claims.
We do not decide today that claims 4–7 are patent eligible under § 101. We only decide that on this record summary judgment was improper, given the fact questions created by the specification’s disclosure.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district
court’s decision that claims 10–19 of the ’713 patent are
invalid as indefinite and its grant of summary judgment
that claims 1–3 and 9 of the ’713 patent are ineligible
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We vacate the district court’s
grant of summary judgment that claims 4–7 are ineligible
under § 101 and remand for further proceedings.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART, VACATED-IN-PART, AND REMANDED
(3)
(0)