The Federal Circuit held that the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), does not apply to alien (foreign) corporate defendants, who remain subject to suit for patent infringement in any U.S. district where they are subject to personal jurisdiction.
The Federal Circuit held that patent claims covering computerized voting, verification, and vote tabulation are directed to the abstract idea of voting — a fundamental human activity for centuries — and thus ineligible under § 101.
The Federal Circuit held that method-of-treatment claims directed to a specific dosing regimen for schizophrenia based on a patient’s genetic profile are patent eligible under §101, distinguishing the Supreme Court’s Mayo decision and reinforcing the eligibility of personalized medicine patents.
The Federal Circuit reversed a PTAB obviousness ruling against a wireless networking patent, holding that “common sense” cannot substitute for real evidentiary support when a prior art reference is missing a claimed limitation, particularly for complex technology.
The Federal Circuit vacated a claim preclusion ruling against SimpleAir, holding that filing a terminal disclaimer in a continuation patent does not create a presumption that the continuation’s claims are patentably indistinct from the parent, and courts must compare actual claim scope before findin
The Federal Circuit held that on a motion to dismiss, courts must accept all well-pleaded facts as true before ruling on patent eligibility under § 101, reversing summary dismissal of software form-processing patents.
The Federal Circuit held that the Alice/Mayo Step 2B inquiry — whether a claim element or combination of elements represents an ‘inventive concept’ that was well-understood, routine, and conventional — contains underlying factual questions that may not always be resolved as a matter of l
The Federal Circuit upheld patent claims covering an improved mobile device application summary interface, holding that specific graphical user interface improvements solving a concrete usability problem are not abstract ideas under § 101.
The Federal Circuit confirmed that patent damages can be apportioned through the royalty rate rather than the royalty base, but vacated a $48 million award because the patent owner’s damages expert failed to adequately explain how the Georgia-Pacific factors supported the proposed royalty rate.
The Federal Circuit held that identifying the “smallest salable patent-practicing unit” is not sufficient when that unit still contains non-patented features, and further apportionment is required to isolate the value of the patented technology in complex software products.