TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIV. v. SYMANTEC CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Inconsistent terminology may render claims indefinite when the claims rely on a minority interpretation

by | Feb 2, 2016 | [sub] consistency, Claim Interpretation

Inconsistent terminology in the specification may render claims indefinite when the claims rely on a minority interpretation. Here, for example, because the claimed “byte sequence feature” is predominantly described in the specification as referring to the machine...

MORTGAGE GRADER, INC. v. FIRST CHOICE LOAN SERVICES (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Operations that can be performed by humans without a computer are generally directed to an abstract idea

by | Jan 20, 2016 | [sub] Alice step one, Subject Matter Eligibility

Operations that can be performed by humans without a computer are generally directed to an abstract idea despite any further recitation of computer hardware. Here, for example, a method of anonymously evaluating a potential borrower for a loan using a third-party...

VEHICLE INTELLIGENCE v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – The use of special-purpose hardware without implementation details is not sufficient for patent eligibility

by | Dec 28, 2015 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility

The mere use of special-purpose hardware without providing implementation details is not sufficient to transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Here, for example, although the court acknowledged that execution of a vehicle operator...

OPENWAVE SYSTEMS, INC. v. APPLE INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Disparaged combinations in the specification will be generally found to be disclaimed from the claim scope

by | Dec 15, 2015 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer

Any combination that is thoroughly disparaged in the specification will be generally found to be disclaimed from the ultimate claim scope. Here, for example, the fact that the specification was rife with remarks that disparage more complex mobile devices incorporating...

AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Selection of an “optimal” element is not necessarily limited to the single best such element

by | Nov 16, 2015 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation

While context dependent, selection of an “optimal” element is not necessarily limited to the single best such element. Here, for example, selection of “an optimal server” was found to include several potentially optimal servers from which content may be retrieved...