DOCSLIB.ORG

Petitioner, V

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

No. 17- IN THE Supreme Court of the United States FRONT ROW TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Petitioner, v. MLB ADVANCED MEDIA, L.P., NBA MEDIA VENTURES, MERCURY RADIO ARTS, INC. DBA THE GLENN BECK PROGRAM, INC., GBTV, LLC, PREMIERE RADIO NETWORKS INC., TURNER SPORTS INTERACTIVE, INC., TURNER DIGITAL BASKETBALL SERVICES, INC., Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CouRT OF AppEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRcuIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI MICHAEL W. SHORE Counsel of Record RUssELL J. DEPALMA SHORE CHAN DEPUmpO LLP 901 Main Street, Suite 3300 Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 593-9110 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner 278890 A (800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859 i QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Petition presents the following questions: 1. What are the rules, both procedural and substantive, for assessing patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for patents claiming inventions described as new and useful combinations of existing components and technologies? 2. Should the Federal Circuit be required to revisit its decision in this case in light of its Berkheimer and Aatrix Software decisions? ii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT There is no parent or publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the stock of Front Row Technologies, LLC. iii PARTIES TO THIS ACTION All parties to this action are identified in the caption on the cover of this petition. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED ......................i CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ...... ii PARTIES TO THIS ACTION.....................iii TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................iv TABLE OF APPENDICES ......................vi TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES ............. vii OPINIONS BELOW..............................1 JURISDICTION .................................1 STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ...........2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................2 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION......8 A. The Patent Eligibility of New and Useful Combinations of Existing Technologies Must Be Preserved .........................8 B. The Patentable Subject Matter Inquiry Must Not Be Collapsed Into Other Inquiries, Particularly At The Pleadings Stage With No Factual Development .........14 v Table of Contents Page C. More Rigorous And Robust Analysis Should Be Required For Claims That Are Indisputably Not Directed To The Types Of General Concepts Or Human Behavior Previously Found To Be Abstract Ideas ......16 CONCLUSION .................................20 vi TABLE OF APPENDICES Page A PPENDIx A — JUDGMENT of the UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS FOR the FEDERAL CIRCUIT, FILED SEPTEMBER 18, 2017 ..................1 APPENDIx B — MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER of the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO, FILED AUGUST 31, 2016.......3a APPENDIx C — STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE of THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO, FILED AUGUST 31, 2016 ............6a APPENDIX D — MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER of the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the DISTRICT of NEW MEXICO, FILED AUGUST 30, 2016 ............................13a APPENDIx E — opinion of the UNITED STATES COURT OF appeals FOR the federal circuit, filed NOVEMBER 21, 2017 .......................232a vii TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES Page Cases Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., No. 2017-1452, 2018 WL 843288 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 14, 2018)...................passim Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).....................passim Berkheimer v. HP Inc., No. 2017-1437, 2018 WL 774096 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2018) ...................passim Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ..................10 DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................8 Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................17 Immunocept, LLC v. Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP, 504 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...................9 KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) .........................8, 12 viii Cited Authorities Page McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am., Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .........11, 14, 15, 17 O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62 (1854) .....................12 Parks v. Booth, 102 U.S. 96 (1880).............................12 Rapid Litigation Mgt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2016)...................13 SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985) ..................15 Thales Visionix Inc. v. U.S., 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............passim Trading Tech. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 F. App’x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......9, 14, 15, 17 STATUTES and OTHER AUTHORITIES 28 U.S.C. § 1254..................................1 28 U.S.C. § 1295..................................1 35 U.S.C. § 101 .............................passim 35 U.S.C. § 102 ...............................15, 16 ix Cited Authorities Page 35 U.S.C. § 103 ...............................15, 16 35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................14, 15, 16 Dennis Crouch, Patent Eligibility: Underlying Questions of Fact, PATENTLY O, Feb. 8, 2018 .......5 Dennis L. Crouch, Wrongly Affirmed Without Opinion, Univ. of Mo. School of Law, Legal Studies Res. Paper Series No. 2017-02 ...........10 FED. CIR. L. R. 36 ..........................passim FED. R. CIV. P. 12 ............................6, 8, 16 Matthew B. Hershkowitz¸ Patently Insane for Patents: A Judge-by-Judge Analysis of the Federal Circuits Post-Alice Patentable Subject Matter Eligibility of Abstract Ideas Jurisprudence, 28 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEdiA & ENT. L. J. 109 (2017) . 2 U.S. Chamber International IP Index...............7 1 Front Row Technologies, LLC respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in this case. OPINIONS BELOW The Federal Circuit did not issue an opinion in Petitioner’s appeal from the decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. Instead, the Federal Circuit issued a ruling under its Local Rule 36 affirming the district court’s dismissal of Front Row’s lawsuit. See App1a-2a. The Federal Circuit denied rehearing and/or en banc rehearing on November 21, 2017. App232a-233a. The district court’s opinion is available as follows: Front Row Techs., LLC v. NBA Media Ventures, LLC, 204 F. Supp. 3d 1190 (D.N.M. 2016); App12a-231a. JURISDICTION The Federal Circuit denied Petitioner’s motion for rehearing en banc on January 13, 2017. App232a-233a. The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). The Federal Circuit’s decision arose from a final judgment in a patent lawsuit filed in the District of New Mexico. The Federal Circuit had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). 2 STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED The statutory provision involved is 35 U.S.C. § 101. It is sufficiently short that the section is reproduced below. 35 U.S.C. § 101 reads: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. STATEMENT OF THE CASE This case presents the Court with the opportunity to provide a much-needed concrete set of rules for determining patent eligibility for inventions that purport to be new and useful combinations of existing components and technologies. Currently, there are no consistent rules for district courts to follow. Outcomes in the Federal Circuit have become panel-dependent; it is not a court where litigants can anticipate how a 35 U.S.C. § 101 issue will be decided.1 The five patents at issue in this lawsuit unquestionably solve a technological problem, namely the wireless streaming of audio/video signals and data from multiple 1. See Matthew B. Hershkowitz¸ Patently Insane for Patents: A Judge-by-Judge Analysis of the Federal Circuits Post-Alice Patentable Subject Matter Eligibility of Abstract Ideas Jurisprudence, 28 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEdiA & ENT. L. J. 109, 133-162 (2017) (discussing methodologies of 11 Federal Circuit judges in determining patent eligibility issues). 3 sources within a venue over a digital network to only authenticated handheld devices capable of two-way communication. The inventions allow each user of the handheld device to independently select and view the signal from a particular source in real time. See Supplemental Appendix (“SA”) at SA23, SA59, SA95, SA131, SA168. The prior art included handheld devices that could only receive and display a video signal, but the signals were analog, not digital, and only one signal was viewable, the one chosen for transmission by the broadcaster. See e.g., SA94. The components of the claimed systems and methods were known individually, but there is no evidence in the record that they were combined in the manner claimed by the patents-at-issue prior to the respective priority dates. Moreover, the district court itself repeatedly found that the inventions of the patents-at-issue are unlike those this Court or the Federal Circuit has previously found to constitute mere abstract ideas, and acknowledged a split in district court decisions analyzing inventions the district court incorrectly found comparable without the aid of any expert testimony. App200a (“Front Row’s claims do not fall squarely within any existing cases’ facts”); App214a. The district court concluded, based on a mere three claims it chose (over Petitioner’s objection) as representative of the five patents, that none of the
Recommended publications
  • An Embedded Linux Based Navigation System for an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle

    An Embedded Linux Based Navigation System for an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle

    An Embedded Linux Based Navigation System for an Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Sonia Thakur James M. Conrad University of North Carolina at Charlotte University of North Carolina at Charlotte [email protected] [email protected] Abstract The purpose of a data acquisition system is to provide reliable and timely information. The received information can be then analyzed in real-time or remotely to assess the state of the measured environment. Similarly, for an autonomous underwater navigation system it is critical to analyze the data received from the inertial measurement unit and other acoustic sensors to calculate its position and direct the vehicle. This work is an effort toward the development of a data logging system based on an embedded Linux platform for an unmanned underwater vehicle. An embedded Linux based board has been chosen Fig. 1. A Hydroid Remus AUV [2] as the core data processing unit of the Autonomous Underwater Vehicle (AUV). This work implements device drivers required for interfacing the inertial sensors and 1.1. Motivation GPS unit to the core-processing unit. This system is intended to provide a development base for implementing The motivation of this work is to design an underwater various navigation algorithms, like Kalman Filter, to navigation system composed of a low cost Embedded calculate the direction of the vehicle. Linux platform and small sized sensors. For air or ground vehicles, a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver with differential corrections (DGPS) can provide very precise 1. Introduction and inexpensive measurements of geodetic coordinates. Unfortunately these GPS radio signals cannot penetrate Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs) are beneath the ocean’s surface, and this poses a considerable unmanned and untethered submarines.
  • Does Strict Territoriality Toll the End of Software Patents?

    Does Strict Territoriality Toll the End of Software Patents?

    NOTES DOES STRICT TERRITORIALITY TOLL THE END OF SOFTWARE PATENTS? James Ernstmeyer* INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1267 I. UNITED STATES PROTECTION FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN SOFTWARE ........................................................................ 1269 A. Defining Software ...................................................................... 1269 B. Copyright Protection for Software ............................................ 1270 C. Patent Protection for Software .................................................. 1272 D. The Backlash Against Intellectual Property Rights in Software ..................................................................................... 1274 E. In re Bilski Turns Back the Clock .............................................. 1278 II. UNITED STATES SOFTWARE PATENTS IN CROSS-BORDER TRADE .... 1280 A. Global Economic Stakes in United States Software Patents ..... 1280 B. Congressional Protection of Patents in Cross-Border Trade ......................................................................................... 1281 C. Extraterritoriality Concerns in Applying § 271(f) to Software Patents ........................................................................ 1283 III. DO PATENTS PROTECT SOFTWARE? – WOULD COPYRIGHTS DO BETTER? ............................................................................................ 1287 A. Effects of the Microsoft v. AT&T Loophole .............................. 1287 B. Combining
  • Throwing Judge Bryson's Curveball: a Pro Patent View of Process Claims As Patent-Eligible Subject Matter

    Throwing Judge Bryson's Curveball: a Pro Patent View of Process Claims As Patent-Eligible Subject Matter

    THE JOHN MARSHALL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW P':L THROWING JUDGE BRYSON'S CURVEBALL: A PRO PATENT VIEW OF PROCESS CLAIMS AS PATENT-ELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER CHRISTOPHER A. HARKINS ABSTRACT Can a baseball pitcher patent a method of throwing a curveball? On May 8, 2008, Judge Bryson posed that hypothetical as a way of stressing a point during the oral argument of In re Bilski, one of the most highly-attended hearings in the twenty-five year history of the Federal Circuit. In the Bilski case, the Federal Circuit will decide whether to embrace a new patentability test that redefines what is patent-eligible subject matter in the United States, or to create a fourth no-no to patent eligibility. At stake are many computer software patents and business method patents that form the lifeblood of financial services and software companies. In a very real sense, the hypothetical highlights the ultimate tension between diametrically opposing views of patents-as protecting inventions through financial incentives that encourage innovation or as spurring excessive litigation through overprotection that stifles innovation. Copyright © 2008 The John Marshall Law School Cite as Christopher A. Harkins, Throwing Judge Bryson's Curveball: A Pro Patent View of Process Claims as Patent-EligibleSubject Matter, 7 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 701 (2008). THROWING JUDGE BRYSON'S CURVEBALL: A PRO PATENT VIEW OF PROCESS CLAIMS AS PATENT-ELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER CHRISTOPHER A. HARKINS* INTRODUCTION Judge Bryson's hypothetical-joined by Judges Lourie and Rader-hints at a remarkable move to silence a growing anti-patent sentiment. Reading the tea leaves from the oral argument, one might predict that the hypothetical shows a willingness to embrace a progressive, open view of patent eligibility notwithstanding the trend of stricter requirements of patentability1 that have arisen amidst the swelling public disapproval of the patent system.
  • PATENT WARS: the ATTACK of BLOCKCHAIN 28 TXIPLJ 241 | Austin Paalz | Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal

    PATENT WARS: the ATTACK of BLOCKCHAIN 28 TXIPLJ 241 | Austin Paalz | Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal

    PATENT WARS: THE ATTACK OF BLOCKCHAIN 28 TXIPLJ 241 | Austin Paalz | Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Document Details All Citations: 28 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 241 Search Details Jurisdiction: National Delivery Details Date: November 5, 2020 at 12:45 AM Delivered By: kiip kiip Client ID: KIIPLIB02 Status Icons: © 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. PATENT WARS: THE ATTACK OF BLOCKCHAIN, 28 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 241 28 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 241 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal 2020 Article Austin Paalz1 Copyright © 2020 by State Bar of Texas, Intellectual Property Law Section; Austin Paalz PATENT WARS: THE ATTACK OF BLOCKCHAIN Table of Contents I. Introduction 242 II. The History of Blockchain Technology 244 A. What is Blockchain? 244 B. Current Applications of Blockchain 247 C. Comparing Blockchain to Software 249 III. The Subject Matter Eligibility Test 250 A. An Early Look at the Subject Matter Eligibility of Patents 251 B. A More Modern Look at Subject Matter Eligibility 254 C. The Current Standard for Subject Matter Eligibility--Alice Corp. 257 D. The Present Impact of Alice Corp. 259 IV. Applying Alice Corp. To Blockchain Technology 260 A. General Analysis of the Subject Matter Eligibility of Blockchain Technology Under the Alice 262 Corp. Test B. Analysis of Blockchain Patents Under the Alice Corp. Framework 264 C. The Effect of the 2019 Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines 268 V. Implications of Patenting Blockchain 270 VI. Conclusion 274 *242 Blockchain has rapidly become one of the most popular technologies that companies are scrambling to integrate into their businesses.
  • M-Learning Tools and Applications

    M-Learning Tools and Applications

    2342-2 Scientific m-Learning 4 - 7 June 2012 m-Learning Tools and Applications TRIVEDI Kirankumar Rajnikant Shantilal Shah Engineering College New Sidsar Campu, PO Vartej Bhavnagar 364001 Gujarat INDIA m-Learning Tools and Applications Scientific m-learning @ ICTP , Italy Kiran Trivedi Associate Professor Dept of Electronics & Communication Engineering. S.S.Engineering College, Bhavnagar, Gujarat Technological University Gujarat, India [email protected] Mobile & Wireless Learning • Mobile = Wireless • Wireless ≠ Mobile (not always) • M-learning is always mobile and wireless. • E-learning can be wireless but not mobile Scientific m-learning @ ICTP Italy Smart Phones • Combines PDA and Mobile Connectivity. • Supports Office Applications • WLAN, UMTS, High Resolution Camera • GPS, Accelerometer, Compass • Large Display, High End Processor, Memory and long lasting battery. Scientific m-learning @ ICTP Italy The Revolution .. • Psion Organizer II • 8 bit processor • 9V Battery • OPL – Language • Memory Extensions, plug-ins • Birth of Symbian 1984 2012 Scientific m-learning @ ICTP Italy History of Smartphone • 1994 : IBM Simon • First “Smartphone” • PIM, Data Communication Scientific m-learning @ ICTP Italy Scientific m-learning @ ICTP Italy The First Nokia Smartphones • 2001 : Nokia 7650 • GPRS : HSCSD • Light – Proximity Sensor • Symbian OS ! • Nokia N95 (March 07) • Having almost all features Scientific m-learning @ ICTP Italy S60 and UIQ Scientific m-learning @ ICTP Italy Scientific m-learning @ ICTP Italy Know your target-know your device
  • Bilski V. Kappos: the Supreme Court Rejects the Federal Circuit's

    Bilski V. Kappos: the Supreme Court Rejects the Federal Circuit's

    Bilski v. Kappos : The Supreme Court Rejects The Federal Circuit's "Machine-or-Transformation" Test As The Sole Test In Determining Whether A Claimed Business Method Is Patent Eligible While Keeping The Door Open For Business Method Patents Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 By: Proprietary Rights Committee Computer Law Section State Bar of Michigan Chairman David R. Syrowik Brooks Kushman P.C. Southfield, Michigan Information Technology Law Section Annual Meeting September 22, 2010 Plymouth, Michigan Bilski v. Kappos : The Supreme Court Rejects The Federal Circuit's "Machine-or-Transformation" Test As The Sole Test In Determining Whether A Claimed Business Method Is Patent Eligible While Keeping The Door Open For Business Method Patents Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Introduction In the Bilski case, 1 on June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that business method patent claims for hedging risk did not define a patentable process under 35 U.S.C. § 101 but rather was an attempt to patent an abstract idea. Prior Supreme Court precedent 2 provides that such ideas, laws of nature and physical phenomena are specific exceptions to § 101's dynamic and wide scope as to patentable subject matter. 3 Despite an extensive concurring opinion authored by Justice Stevens, 4 who would have held that all business methods are unpatentable, Justice Kennedy, who authored the majority opinion, held that a business method was one kind of "method" that, at least in some circumstances, is eligible for patenting under § 101. 5 In saying this, the Court rejected the exclusivity of the Federal Circuit's "machine-or-transformation" test in determining patent- eligible subject matter under the statute.
  • Inphi Corporation (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter)

    Inphi Corporation (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter)

    Table of Contents UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 Form 10-K (Mark One) x ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 Or ¨ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Commission file number 001-34942 Inphi Corporation (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter) Delaware 77-0557980 (State or Other Jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer Incorporation or Organization) Identification No.) 3945 Freedom Circle, Suite 1100, Santa Clara, California 95054 (Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Zip Code) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (408) 217-7300 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of Class Name of Exchange on Which Registered Common Stock, $0.001 par value New York Stock Exchange Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ¨ No x Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ¨ No x Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
  • The Internet of Things – Opportunities and Challenges for Semiconductor Companies May 2015

    The Internet of Things – Opportunities and Challenges for Semiconductor Companies May 2015

    The Internet of Things – opportunities and challenges for semiconductor companies May 2015 January 2015 This final report is the result of a collaboration between McKinsey and the Global Semiconductor Alliance (GSA) For semiconductors, the IoT is GSA/McKinsey collaboration A key growth opportunity Unpaid collaboration between GSA and ▪ The number of connected IoT devices is McKinsey & Company to develop a expected to reach 20 – 30 bn by 2020 perspective on the implications of IoT for the semiconductor industry ▪ A semiconductor growth opportunity exists for servers/network equipment (“Internet”) and 11 GSA member executives overseeing the components for deployed “things” effort as the Steering Committee A new strategic challenge Interviews with 30 C-level executives from ▪ The highly vertical character of the IoT (many semiconductor companies and the broader IoT small niches) requires a new approach on how ecosystem (including semiconductor to address the market customers) ▪ The IoT is starting to happen but is still early Survey of 229 semiconductor executives in its development (e.g., unclear standards, no from GSA member companies “killer application” yet) ▪ IoT devices often have specific technical Supporting rigorous (quantitative) analyses requirements regarding low power consumption, integration, cost points, Final report summarizing findings (ex- connectivity, and sensors clusively available for GSA members) SOURCE: Gartner; IDC; ABI Research; GSA and McKinsey & Company “IoT collaboration” 1 The joint GSA/McKinsey report on IoT
  • Case 1:10-Cv-00433-JB-SCY Document 357 Filed 08/30/16 Page 1 of 140

    Case 1:10-Cv-00433-JB-SCY Document 357 Filed 08/30/16 Page 1 of 140

    Case 1:10-cv-00433-JB-SCY Document 357 Filed 08/30/16 Page 1 of 140 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO FRONT ROW TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. No. CIV 10-0433 JB/SCY NBA MEDIA VENTURES, LLC, MLB ADVANCED MEDIA, L.P., MERCURY RADIO ARTS, INC., GBTV, LLC, MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PROPERTIES, INC ., & PREMIERE RADIO NETWORKS, INC., Defendants. consolidated with FRONT ROW TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. No. CIV 12-1309 JB/SCY MLB ADVANCED MEDIA, L.P., MERCURY RADIO ARTS, INC., d/b/a ‘THE GLEN BECK PROGRAM, INC.’, & GBTV, LLC, Defendants. consolidated with FRONT ROW TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. No. CIV 13-1153 JB/SCY NBA MEDIA VENTURES, TURNER SPORTS INTERACTIVE, INC. & TURNER DIGITAL BASKETBALL Case 1:10-cv-00433-JB-SCY Document 357 Filed 08/30/16 Page 2 of 140 SERVICES, INC., Defendants. consolidated with FRONT ROW TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. No. CIV 13-0636 JB/SCY TURNER SPORTS INTERACTIVE, INC., AND TURNER DIGITAL BASKETBALL SERVICES, INC., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), filed October 21, 2015 (Doc. 229)(“Motion”). The Court held a hearing on January 5, 2016. The primary issues are: (i) what evidentiary standard applies to patent eligibility disputes under 35 U.S.C. § 101; (ii) whether the Court must wait until a later stage to examine the subject-matter eligibility of Plaintiff Front Row Technologies, LLC’s patents; (iii) whether the Court may select representative claims, and what those claims should be; (iv) whether Front Row’s patents are directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas; and (v) if Front Row’s patents are directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas, whether the claims’ elements, as a whole, contain an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
  • Bilski V. Kappos: Everything Old Is New Again

    Bilski V. Kappos: Everything Old Is New Again

    Digital Commons @ Georgia Law Scholarly Works Faculty Scholarship 4-1-2011 Bilski v. Kappos: Everything Old is New Again Joe Miller University of Georgia School of Law, [email protected] Repository Citation Joe Miller, Bilski v. Kappos: Everything Old is New Again , 15 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 1 (2011), Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/fac_artchop/777 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ Georgia Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Works by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Georgia Law. Please share how you have benefited from this access For more information, please contact [email protected]. SYMPOSIUM BILKSI V KAPPOS: EVERYTHING OLD IS NEW AGAIN INTRODUCTION by Joseph Scott Miller As a threshold matter, what types of things are patentable? What types of things are not? Section 101 of the Patent Act lists four big categories: "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title."' The operative language has scarcely changed since it was first enacted in 1793. Most patent claims to products fit squarely within one of the three product-style categories and thus cause no analytical difficulties. From fluoxetine hydrochloride, the active ingredient in Prozac (U.S. Patent No. 4,314,081), to bubble wrap (U.S. Patent No. 3,142,599), to the air- . Professor, Lewis & Clark Law School. 2010 0 Joseph Scott Miller.
  • ERICSSON, INC. V. D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC

    ERICSSON, INC. V. D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC

    United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ERICSSON, INC., TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON, AND WI-FI ONE, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC., NETGEAR, INC., ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION, AND GATEWAY, INC., Defendants-Appellants, AND DELL, INC., Defendant-Appellant, AND TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC. AND TOSHIBA CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellants, AND INTEL CORPORATION, Intervenor-Appellant, AND BELKIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant. ______________________ 2 ERICSSON, INC. v. D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC. 2013-1625, -1631, -1632, -1633 ______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 10-CV-0473, Judge Leonard Davis. ______________________ Decided: December 4, 2014 ______________________ DOUGLAS A. CAWLEY, McKool Smith, P.C., of Dallas, Texas, argued for plaintiffs-appellees Ericsson Inc., et al. With him on the brief were THEODORE STEVENSON, III and WARREN LIPSCHITZ, and JOHN B. CAMPBELL and KATHY H. LI, of Austin, Texas. Of counsel on the brief was JOHN M. WHEALAN, of Chevy Chase, Maryland. WILLIAM F. LEE, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, of Boston, Massachusetts, argued for defend- ants-appellants and intervenor-appellant. With him on the brief for intervenor-appellant Intel Corporation were JOSEPH J. MUELLER, MARK C. FLEMING, and LAUREN B. FLETCHER, of Boston, Massachusetts; and JAMES L. QUARLES, III, of Washington, DC. Of counsel on the brief were GREG AROVAS, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, of New York, New York, ADAM R. ALPER, of San Francisco, California, and JOHN C. O’QUINN, of Washington, DC. On the brief for defendants-appellants D-Link Systems, Inc., et al., were ROBERT A.
  • In Re Bilski and the Future of Business Method and Software Patents

    In Re Bilski and the Future of Business Method and Software Patents

    103 IN RE BILSKI AND THE FUTURE OF BUSINESS METHOD AND SOFTWARE PATENTS ELIZABETH RUZICH* ABSTRACT The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in In re Bilski1 has further mud- dled the standard for determining patentable subject matter. A review of post- Bilski cases from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) reveals that the courts cannot apply a consistent standard for the machine-or- transformation test. The Supreme Court will soon decide whether to affirm Bilski. In the meantime, patent practitioners must adapt to the changes by amending claims in pending applications and drafting applications to include sufficient references to computer hardware to overcome, or avoid, any rejections for lack of statutory subject matter. * Elizabeth Ruzich is an associate at Patent Law Works in Salt Lake City, UT. 1 In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), cert. granted sub nom. Bilski v. Doll, 129 S. Ct. 2735 (2009) (No. 08-964) (argued Nov. 9, 2009). Volume 50—Number 1 104 IDEA—The Intellectual Property Law Review I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 104 II. BPAI CASES—LI, HALLIGAN, KOO, CORNEA-HASEGAN, BARNES, AND BECKER ............................................................................................... 107 III. RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................... 117 IV. SUPREME COURT RULING ................................................................. 119 I. INTRODUCTION Section 101 of the Patent Act states: “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”2 The first test to come out of this statute is that of utility: all inventions must be useful.