Patent Eligibility

(Including:  Section 101)

CELLSPIN SOFT, INC v. FITBIT, INC, Appeal Nos. 2018-1817 and 1819-26 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2019) (Lourie, O’Malley, and Taranto).  Appealed from N.D. Cal. (Judge Rogers).  (Subject Matter Eligibility)  Summary by:  Matt Stanford

CELLSPIN SOFT, INC v. FITBIT, INC事件、上訴番号2018-1817および1819-26 (CAFC、2019年6月25日) (Lourie裁判官、O’Malley裁判官、Taranto裁判官による審理)。カリフォルニア州北部地区地方裁判所(Rogers裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(発明の特許適格性)  Matt Stanfordによる要約

NATURAL ALTERNATIVES INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. CREATIVE COMPOUNDS, LLC, Appeal No. 2018-1295 (Fed. Cir. March 15, 2019).  Before Moore, Reyna, and Wallach.  Appealed from S.D. Cal. (Judge Huff). (Subject Matter Eligibility)   Summary by:  Chris Wheeler

NATURAL ALTERNATIVES INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. CREATIVE COMPOUNDS, LLC事件、 上訴番号2018-1295(CAFC、2019年3月15日)。Moore裁判官、Reyna裁判官、Wallach裁判官による審理。  カリフォルニア州南部地区地方裁判所(Huff裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(特許適格性のある主題) Christopher J. Wheelerによる要約

In re: MARCO Guldenaar Holding B.V., Appeal No. 2017-2465 (Fed. Cir.    December 28, 2018).  Before Chen, Mayer, and Bryson.  Appealed from the P.T.A.B. (Patent Eligibility)  Summary by:  James Potts

In re: MARCO Guldenaar Holding B.V.事件、上訴番号2017-2465(CAFC、2018年12月28日)。Chen裁判官、Mayer裁判官、Bryson裁判官による審理。米国特許庁審判部(PTAB)の決定を不服としての上訴。(特許適格性) James Pottsによる要約

ANCORA TECHS, INC. V. HTC, Appeal No. 2018-1404 (Fed. Cir. November 16, 2018) (Dyk, Wallach, and Taranto) Appealed from W.D. Wash. (Judge Jones).  (Patent Eligibility)  Summary by:  Dae-Gunn Jei

ANCORA TECHS, INC. V. HTC事件、上訴番号2018-1404(CAFC、2018年11月16日) (Dyk裁判官、Wallach裁判官、Taranto裁判官による審理) ワシントン州西部地区地方裁判所(Jones裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(特許適格性Dae-Gunn Jei氏による要約

ROCHE MOLECULAR SYS., INC. v. CEPHEID, Appeal No. 2017-1690 (Fed. Cir. October 9, 2018).  Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Hughes.  Appealed from N.D. Ca. (Magistrate Judge Laporte). (Subject Matter Ineligibility)  Summary by:  Molly Chen

DATA ENGINE TECH. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC, Appeal No. 2017-1135 (Fed. Cir. October 9, 2018) (Reyna, Bryson, and Stoll).  Appealed from D. Del. (Judge Stark).  (Patent Eligibility)    Summary by:  Matt Stanford

DATA ENGINE TECH. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC事件、上訴番号2017-1135(CAFC、2018年10月9日) Reyna裁判官、Bryson裁判官、Stoll裁判官による審理。デラウエア地区地方裁判所(Stark裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(特許適格性)  Matt Stanfordによる要約

VOTER VERIFIED, INC., v. ELECTION SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE LLC, Appeal No. 2017-1930 (Fed. Cir. April 20, 2018).  Before Newman, Lourie and Reyna.  Appealed from N.D. Fla. (Issue Preclusion—§101)  Summary by:  John Hocker

VANDA PHARM. INC. v. WEST-WARD PHARM. INT’L LTD., Appeal Nos. 2016-2707, -2708 (Fed. Cir. April 13, 2018).  Before Prost, Lourie, and Hughes.  Appealed from D. Del. (Judge Sleet). (Subject Matter Eligibility)   Summary by:  Molly Chen

VANDA PHARM. INC. v. WEST-WARD PHARM. INT’L LTD.事件、上訴番号 2016-2707, -2708 (CAFC、2018年4月13日)。Prost裁判官、Lourie裁判官、Hughes裁判官による審理。デラウエア地区地方裁判所(Sleet裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(特許適格性に関する内容Molly Chen氏による要約

CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L. v. LG ELECTRONICS, INC., Appeal Nos. 2016-2684, 2017-1922 (Fed. Cir. January 25, 2018).  Before Moore, O’Malley, and Wallach.  Appealed from E.D. Tex. (Judge Gilstrap).  (35 U.S.C. §101 (ALICE); Claim Construction)   Summary byJay Stelacone

VISUAL MEMORY LLC v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, Appeal No. 2016-2254 (Fed. Cir. August 15, 2017).  Before O’Malley, Hughes, and Stoll.  Appealed from D. Del. (Judge Andrews).  (Patent Eligibility – ALICE)  Summary by:  John Hocker

CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION v. TRUE HEALTH DIAGNOSTICS, LLC, Appeal No. 2016-1766 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2017).  Before Lourie, Reyna, and Wallach.  Appealed from N.D. Ohio (Judge Gaughan).  (§101 Subject Matter Eligibility)  Summary by:  Megan Doughty

THALES VISIONIX INC. v. UNITED STATES, Appeal Nos. 2015-5150. (Fed. Cir. March 8, 2017).  Before Moore, Wallach and Stoll.  Appealed from Ct. Fed. Claims (Judge Moore).  (Patent-Eligible Subject Matter)

APPLE, INC. v. AMERANTH, INC., Appeal Nos. 2015-1703, 2015-1704 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 29, 2016).  Before Reyna, Chen, Stoll.  Appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. (Subject Matter Eligibility)

AMDOCS (ISRAEL) Ltd. v. OPENET TELECOM, INC., Appeal No. 2015-1180 (Fed. Cir. November 1, 2016).  Before Newman, Plager, and Reyna.  On appeal from E.D. Va (Judge Brinkema).  (Subject Matter Eligibility – Abstract Idea)

INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC v. SYMANTEC CORP., Appeal Nos. 2015-1769, -1770, -1771 (Fed. Cir. September 30, 2016).  Before Dyk, Mayer, and Stoll.  Appealed from D. Del. (Judge Stark).  (Subject Matter Eligibility)

AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2015-1845, 2015-1846, 2015-1847, 2015-1848. (Fed. Cir. September 23, 2016).  Before Prost, Bryson and Wallach.  Appealed from W.D. Tex. (Judge Smith).  (Subject Matter Eligibility)

MCRO, INC. v. BANDAI NAMCO GAMES AM. INC., Appeal Nos. 2015-1080 through -1090 and -1092 through -1101 (Fed. Cir. September 13, 2016).  Before Reyna, Taranto, and Stoll.  Appealed from C.D. Cal. (Judge Wu).  (Subject Matter Eligibility)

RAPID LITIGATION MANAGEMENT LTD. v. CELLZDIRECT, INC., Appeal No. 2015‑1570 (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2016).  Before Prost, Moore and Stoll.  Appealed from N.D. Ill. (Judge Shadur).  (Patent Eligible Subject Matter, Law of Nature)

BASCOM GLOBAL INTERNET SERVICES, INC. v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC, Appeal No. 2015-1763 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2016).  Before Newman, O’Malley and Chen.  Appealed from N.D. Tex. (Judge Lynn).  (Patent Eligible Subject Matter)

TLI COMMUNICATIONS LLC v. AV AUTOMOTIVE, L.L.C., Appeal Nos. 2015-1372, -1376-1379, -1382-1385, -1417, -1419, -1421 (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2016).  Before Dyk, Schall and Hughes.  Appealed from E.D. Va. (Judge Ellis).  (Patent Eligible Subject Matter)

ENFISH, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORP., Appeal No. 2015-1244 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016).  Before Moore, Tanto, and Hughes.  Appealed from C.D. Cal. (Judge Pfaelzer).  (Patentable Subject Matter)

GENETIC TECH. LTD. v. MERIAL L.L.C., Appeal Nos. 2015-1202 and 2015-1203 (Fed. Cir. April 8, 2016).  Before Prost, Dyk, and Taranto.  Appealed from D. Del. (Judge Stark).  (Patent Eligibility)

IN RE SMITH, Appeal No. 2015-1664 (Fed. Cir. March 10, 2016).  Before Moore, Hughes and Stoll.  Appealed from PTAB.  (Patentable Subject Matter – Alice)

ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. SEQUENOM, INC., Appeal Nos. 2014-1139, -1144 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2015).  Before Reyna, Linn, and Wallach.  Appealed from N.D. Cal. (Judge Illston).  (Subject Matter Eligibility)

CONTENT EXTRACTION & TRANSMISSION LLC v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NAT’L ASS’N, Appeal Nos. 2013-1588, 2013-1589, 2014-1112, and 2014-1687 (Fed. Cir. December 23, 2014).  Before Dyk, Taranto, and Chen.  Appealed from D.N.J. (Judge Shipp).  (Patent-Eligible Subject Matter)

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH RESEARCH FOUNDATION v. AMBRY GENETICS CORPORATION, Appeal Nos. 2014-1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. December 17, 2014).  Before Dyk, Prost, and Clevenger.  Appealed from D. Utah (Judge Shelby).  (Patent-Eligible Subject Matter)

DDR HOLDINGS, LLC. v. HOTELS.COM, L.P., Appeal No. 2013-1505 (Fed. Cir. December 5, 2014). Before Wallach, Mayer and Chen. Appealed from E.D. Tex. (Judge Gilstrap). (Anticipation; Indefiniteness; Patent Eligible Subject Matter)

BUYSAFE, INC. v. GOOGLE, INC., Appeal No. 2013-1575 (Fed. Cir. September 3, 2014). Before Taranto and Hughes. Appealed from D. Del. (Judge Stark). (Subject Matter Eligibility-Abstract Idea)

DIGITECH IMAGE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC., v. ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING, INC., Appeal No. 2013-1600-1618 (Fed. Cir. July 11, 2014).  Before Moore, Reyna, and Hughes.  Appealed from C.D. Cal. (Judge Wright).  (Subject Matter Eligibility-Abstract Idea)

ALICE CORP. PTY. LTD. v. CLS BANK INT’L, Appeal No. 2013-298 (U.S. June 19, 2014).  Delivered by Thomas.  Appealed from Fed. Cir. (en banc).  (Patent Eligibility Under §101)

IN RE ROSLIN INSTITUTE, Appeal No. 2013-1407 (Fed. Cir. May 8, 2014).  Before Dyk, Moore, and Wallach.  Appealed from PTAB.  (Patentable Subject Matter)