IP Newsflash

A district court recently granted a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of patent claims directed to intermittent fault detection (IFD) technology for electrical systems in aircrafts, deciding that the asserted claims are patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court found that the claims fail to recite any specific technological improvements over the prior art, because the alleged innovations were described in the specification but not recited in the claims.

Senior Circuit Judge Bryson of the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation in the District of Delaware, recently granted-in-part and denied-in-part a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment based on patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patents are directed to restricting access to computer files. The court found certain claims eligible because they are directed to a problem arising in the realm of computers and they identify a specific improvement in computer capabilities. The court found other claims ineligible because they broadly recite generic steps and results and they were not limited to the technical advancement disclosed in the specification.

On remand from the Federal Circuit following an appeal and petition for cert to the Supreme Court, the District of Delaware considered whether the claims remaining in dispute in American Axle v. Neapco were invalid for failing to claim patent eligible subject matter. In this latest iteration, the district court found, as a matter of law, that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea and granted summary judgment in American Axle’s favor.

In a sua sponte review, USPTO Director Kathy Vidal continued her refinement of the PTAB’s “discretionary denial” practice. Specifically, the Director vacated the Board’s decision to deny institution in Volvo Penta of the Americas, LLC v. Brunswick Corp. (IPR2022-01424). In doing so, the Director clarified the PTAB’s statutory authority to institute an IPR and affirmed that the discretionary denial factors set out in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc. also apply when an invalidated patent is still on appeal.

Judge Cronan in the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.) recently granted a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint because the patents-in-suit are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patents are directed to online video streaming. The court found the claims unpatentable because they recite abstract ideas of reformatting and recording data and transmitting audiovisual data.

Judge Wolson in the District of Delaware recently granted a motion for summary judgment of invalidity for patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patent is directed to cochlear implants. A single dependent claim remained at issue in the case after other claims were invalidated in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. The court found that the claim-at-issue recited the abstract idea of wireless communication between a computer and hearing devices.

Judge Orrick in the Northern District of California recently granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings that the asserted claims are invalid for claiming patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patents-at-issue are directed to flight control systems for aircraft. The court found the claims unpatentable because they recite abstract mathematical techniques carried out by generic components performing their conventional functions.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Cameron Elliot recently found no violation of Section 337 in part because the claims recite patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patents are directed to polycrystalline diamond compacts (PDCs) used in drill bits for high-abrasion applications, such as earth-boring. The ALJ found that the claims recite conventional structural features combined with patent-ineligible performance measures and side effects.