APPLE, INC. v. AMERANTH (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Automation of a desired result without a method for achieving that result lacks an inventive concept

by | Nov 29, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility

Computer-based automation of a desired result without reciting a particular method for achieving that result does not rise to the level of an inventive concept under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework for establishing subject matter eligibility. Here, for example,...

GE LIGHTING SOLUTIONS, LLC v. LIGHTS OF AMERICA, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (NP) – General distinctions over the prior art do not provide objective boundaries for terms of degree

by | Oct 27, 2016 | [sub] clarity, Indefiniteness

General distinctions drawn between the claimed invention and the prior art are not sufficient to provide any objective boundaries for terms of degree. Here, for example, the patentee’s argument during prosecution that prior art disk-shaped and plate-shaped heat sinks...

SYNOPSYS, INC. v. MENTOR GRAPHICS CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Improvements to mental processes as opposed to computer efficacy do not qualify as an inventive concept

by | Oct 17, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility

Improvements to mental processes as opposed to computer efficacy do not qualify as an inventive concept for establishing patent eligibility under the second step of Mayo/Alice. Here, for example, claims to an improvement in the design process for a logic circuit...

FAIRWARNING IP, LLC v. IATRIC SYSTEMS, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – The automation of rule-processing is an abstract idea if the improvement is the automation not the rule

by | Oct 11, 2016 | [sub] Alice step one, Subject Matter Eligibility

The automation of rule-processing is a merely directed to an abstract idea if it is the automation rather than the rule that improves a technological process. Here, for example, claims reciting the automation of fraud and misuse detection were found to be directed to...

INTERTAINER, INC. v. HULU, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016) (NP) – A functionally-described element “adapted to” perform multiple functions does not exclude multiple elements

by | Sep 26, 2016 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

A functionally-described element “adapted to” perform a plurality of functions does not exclude multiple elements performing those functions when no structural limitations are recited. Here, for example, a “link program” adapted to “both … interrupt streaming of the...