In Shenzhen Chengront Technology Co., Ltd v. Besign Direct et al, 1-22-cv-10281 (SDNY Dec. 9, 2022) (Jennifer L. Rochon), Judge Rochon of the Southern District of New York denied a Plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and cited the Plaintiff’s ten-month delay in filing suit as the primary reasoning for denying the TRO.
Continue Reading District Court Finds Ten-Month Delay in Filing Wants Denial of TRO
My last column was the first of two columns discussing some of the most common misconceptions or myths about patents. Here is the second part, starting with number five on my list. 
Inventors and patent owners often assume that a patent
In Life Technologies v. Promega Corporation, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether supplying a single component from the United States of a multicomponent invention assembled abroad constitutes patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(f)(1). Under §271(f)(1), a party can be liable for patent infringement if it supplies from the United States “all or a substantial
It sounds like a silly question, doesn’t it? After all, self-driving cars represent innovative progress in technology, and patents are intended “to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause
Patents covering software for use in the financial industry
are increasingly being invalidated by the courts. Because of the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), district courts are holding these patents invalid on the grounds that they are unpatentable abstract ideas, and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals is affirming the district courts’ decisions.
Patents may cover one of four statutory categories of inventions: (1) machines; (2) articles of manufacture; (3) processes; and (4) compositions of matter. 35.U.S.C. §101. These types of inventions are called “patent-eligible subject matter.” The longstanding exceptions to these four categories are: natural phenomena, laws of nature, and abstract ideas. These types of inventions are called “patent-ineligible subject matter.”
In Alice Corp., the Supreme Court established a two-part test to determine the patentability of claims directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The first step is to decide whether the claims in the patent are directed to patent ineligible subject matter, such as an abstract idea. If so, the second step is to determine whether the elements of the claim transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Two recent cases illustrate the trend. In both cases, the claims covered software for use in the financial industry, as was true of the claims invalidated in Alice Corp.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Continues to Nix Financial Patents
