Patent Eligibility

(Including: Section 101)

CONTOUR IP HOLDING LLC v. GOPRO, INC., Appeals Nos. 2022-1654, 2022-1691 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 9, 2024). Before Prost, Schall, and Reyna. Appealed from N.D. Cal. (Judge Orrick). (§101 Eligibility)

CONTOUR IP HOLDING LLC v. GOPRO, INC.事件、上訴番号 2022-1654、2022-1691 (CAFC、2024年9月9日)。Prost裁判官、Schall裁判官、Reyna裁判官による審理。カリフォルニア州北部地区地方裁判所(Orrick裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(§101に基づく特許適格性)

HAWK TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, LLC v. CASTLE RETAIL, LLC, Appeal No. 2022-1222 (Fed. Cir. February 17, 2023). Before Reyna, Hughes, and Cunningham. Appealed from W.D. Tenn. (Judge McCalla). (§101 Patent Eligibility)

HAWK TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, LLC v. CASTLE RETAIL, LLC事件、上訴番号2022-1222(CAFC、2023年2月17日)。Reyna裁判官、Hughes裁判官、Cunningham裁判官による審理。テネシー州西部地区地方裁判所(McCalla裁判官)による判決を不服としての上訴。(§101に基づく特許適格性)

FREE STREAM MEDIA CORP. v. ALPHONSO INC., Appeal Nos. 2019-1506, 2019-2133 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2021). Before Dyk, Reyna, and Hughes. Appealed from N.D. Cal. (Judge Seeborg). (Patent Eligibility)

FREE STREAM MEDIA CORP. v. ALPHONSO INC.事件、上訴番号2019-1506、2019-2133 (CAFC、2021年5月11日)。Dyk裁判官、Reyna裁判官、Hughes裁判官による審理。カリフォルニア州北部地区地方裁判所(Seeborg裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(特許適格性)

SIMIO, LLC v. FLEXSIM SOFTWARE PRODUCTS, INC., Appeal No. 2020-1171 (Fed. Cir. December 29, 2020). Before Prost, Clevenger, and Stoll. Appealed from D. Utah (Judge Benson). (Subject Matter Eligibility)

SIMIO, LLC v. FLEXSIM SOFTWARE PRODUCTS, INC.事件、上訴番号2020-1171(CAFC、2020年12月29日)。Prost裁判官、Clevenger裁判官、Stoll裁判官による審理。ユタ州地区地方裁判所(Benson裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(特許適格性)

GREE, INC. v. SUPERCELL OY, Appeal Nos. 2019-1864, -1960 (Fed. Cir. November 19, 2020). Before Lourie, Hughes and Stoll. Appealed from PTAB. (Patent Eligibility)

GREE, INC. v. SUPERCELL OY事件、上訴番号2019-1864、-1960 (CAFC、2020年11月19日)。Lourie裁判官、Hughes裁判官、Stoll裁判官による審理。PTABの決定を不服としての上訴。(特許適格性)

XY, LLC v. TRANS OVA GENETICS, LC, Appeal No. 2019-1789 (Fed. Cir. July 31, 2020). Before Wallach, Plager and Stoll. Appealed from D. Col. (Judge Martinez). (Patent Eligibility)

XY, LLC v. TRANS OVA GENETICS, LC事件、上訴番号2019-1789 (CAFC、2020年7月31日)。 Wallach裁判官、Plager裁判官、Stoll裁判官による審理。コロラド州地区地方裁判所(Martinez裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(特許適格性)

UNILOC USA, INC. v. LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC., Appeal No. 2019-1835 (Fed. Cir. April 30, 2020). Before Moore, Reyna, and Taranto. Appealed from N.D. Cal. (Judge Koh). (Patent Eligibility)

UNILOC USA, INC. v. LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC.事件、上訴番号2019-1835(CAFC、2020年4月30日)。Moore裁判官、Reyna裁判官、Taranto裁判官による審理。カリフォルニア州北部地区地方裁判所(Koh裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(特許適格性)

ILLUMINA, INC. v. ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Appeal No. 2019-1419 (Fed. Cir. March 17, 2020). Before Lourie, Moore, and Reyna. Appealed from N.D. Cal. (Judge Illston). (Patent Eligibility)

ILLUMINA, INC. v. ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC.事件、上訴番号2019-1419(CAFC、2020年3月17日)。 Lourie裁判官、Moore裁判官、Reyna裁判官による審理。カリフォルニア州北部地区地方裁判所(Illston裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(特許適格性)

CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC., Appeal No. 2019-1149 (Fed. Cir. April 17, 2020). Before Dyk, Plager and Stoll. Appealed from D. Mass. (Judge Talwani). (Patent Eligibility)

CARDIONET, LLC v. INFOBIONIC, INC.事件、上訴番号2019-1149(CAFC、2020年4月17日)。Dyk裁判官、Plager裁判官、Stoll裁判官による審理。マサチューセッツ州地区地方裁判所(Talwani裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(特許適格性)

KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH, Appeal Nos. 2018-1863, 1864, 1865 (Fed. Cir. November 15, 2019). Before Dyk, Chen and Stoll. Appealed from D. Del. (Judge Stark). (Subject Matter Eligibility)

KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V. v. GEMALTO M2M GMBH事件、上訴番号2018-1863、1864、1865 (CAFC、 2019年11月15日)。Dyk裁判官、Chen裁判官、Stoll裁判官による審理。デラウエア州地区地方裁判所(Stark裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(発明の特許適格性)

AMERICAN AXLE & MANUFACTURING, INC., v. NEAPCO HOLDINGS LLC, Appeal No. 2018-1763 (Fed. Cir. October 3, 2019). Before Dyk, Moore and Taranto. Appealed from D. Del. (Judge Stark). (Subject Matter Eligibility)

AMERICAN AXLE & MANUFACTURING, INC., v. NEAPCO HOLDINGS LLC事件、上訴番号 2018-1763 (CAFC、2019年10月3日)。Dyk裁判官、Moore裁判官、Taranto裁判官による審理。デラウエア州地区地方裁判所(Stark裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(特許適格性)

CELLSPIN SOFT, INC v. FITBIT, INC, Appeal Nos. 2018-1817 and 1819-26 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2019) (Lourie, O’Malley, and Taranto). Appealed from N.D. Cal. (Judge Rogers). (Subject Matter Eligibility)

CELLSPIN SOFT, INC v. FITBIT, INC事件、上訴番号2018-1817および1819-26　(CAFC、2019年6月25日) (Lourie裁判官、O’Malley裁判官、Taranto裁判官による審理)。カリフォルニア州北部地区地方裁判所(Rogers裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(発明の特許適格性)

NATURAL ALTERNATIVES INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. CREATIVE COMPOUNDS, LLC, Appeal No. 2018-1295 (Fed. Cir. March 15, 2019). Before Moore, Reyna, and Wallach. Appealed from S.D. Cal. (Judge Huff). (Subject Matter Eligibility)

NATURAL ALTERNATIVES INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. CREATIVE COMPOUNDS, LLC事件、上訴番号2018-1295(CAFC、2019年3月15日)。Moore裁判官、Reyna裁判官、Wallach裁判官による審理。カリフォルニア州南部地区地方裁判所(Huff裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(特許適格性のある主題)

In re: MARCO Guldenaar Holding B.V., Appeal No. 2017-2465 (Fed. Cir. December 28, 2018). Before Chen, Mayer, and Bryson. Appealed from the P.T.A.B. (Patent Eligibility)

In re: MARCO Guldenaar Holding B.V.事件、上訴番号2017-2465(CAFC、2018年12月28日)。Chen裁判官、Mayer裁判官、Bryson裁判官による審理。米国特許庁審判部(PTAB)の決定を不服としての上訴。(特許適格性)

ANCORA TECHS, INC. V. HTC, Appeal No. 2018-1404 (Fed. Cir. November 16, 2018) (Dyk, Wallach, and Taranto) Appealed from W.D. Wash. (Judge Jones). (Patent Eligibility)

ANCORA TECHS, INC. V. HTC事件、上訴番号2018-1404(CAFC、2018年11月16日) (Dyk裁判官、Wallach裁判官、Taranto裁判官による審理) ワシントン州西部地区地方裁判所(Jones裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(特許適格性)

ROCHE MOLECULAR SYS., INC. v. CEPHEID, Appeal No. 2017-1690 (Fed. Cir. October 9, 2018). Before O’Malley, Reyna, and Hughes. Appealed from N.D. Ca. (Magistrate Judge Laporte). (Subject Matter Ineligibility)

ROCHE MOLECULAR SYS., INC. v. CEPHEID事件、上訴番号2017-1690(CAFC、2018年10月9日)。O’Malley裁判官、Reyna裁判官、Hughes裁判官による審理。カリフォルニア州北部地区地方裁判所(Laporte治安判事)の判決を不服としての上訴。

DATA ENGINE TECH. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC, Appeal No. 2017-1135 (Fed. Cir. October 9, 2018) (Reyna, Bryson, and Stoll). Appealed from D. Del. (Judge Stark). (Patent Eligibility)

DATA ENGINE TECH. LLC v. GOOGLE LLC事件、上訴番号2017-1135(CAFC、2018年10月9日) Reyna裁判官、Bryson裁判官、Stoll裁判官による審理。デラウエア地区地方裁判所(Stark裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(特許適格性)

VOTER VERIFIED, INC., v. ELECTION SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE LLC, Appeal No. 2017-1930 (Fed. Cir. April 20, 2018). Before Newman, Lourie and Reyna. Appealed from N.D. Fla. (Issue Preclusion—§101)

VOTER VERIFIED, INC., v. ELECTION SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE LLC事件、上訴番号 2017-1930 (CAFC、2018年4月20日)。Newman裁判官、Lourie裁判官、Reyna裁判官による審理。米国フロリダ州北部地区地方裁判所(Walker裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。 (101条に基づく争点効)

VANDA PHARM. INC. v. WEST-WARD PHARM. INT’L LTD., Appeal Nos. 2016-2707, -2708 (Fed. Cir. April 13, 2018). Before Prost, Lourie, and Hughes. Appealed from D. Del. (Judge Sleet). (Subject Matter Eligibility)

VANDA PHARM. INC. v. WEST-WARD PHARM. INT’L LTD.事件、上訴番号 2016-2707, -2708 (CAFC、2018年4月13日)。Prost裁判官、Lourie裁判官、Hughes裁判官による審理。デラウエア地区地方裁判所(Sleet裁判官)の判決を不服としての上訴。(特許適格性に関する内容)

CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L. v. LG ELECTRONICS, INC., Appeal Nos. 2016-2684, 2017-1922 (Fed. Cir. January 25, 2018). Before Moore, O’Malley, and Wallach. Appealed from E.D. Tex. (Judge Gilstrap). (35 U.S.C. §101 (ALICE); Claim Construction)

VISUAL MEMORY LLC v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, Appeal No. 2016-2254 (Fed. Cir. August 15, 2017). Before O’Malley, Hughes, and Stoll. Appealed from D. Del. (Judge Andrews). (Patent Eligibility – ALICE)

CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION v. TRUE HEALTH DIAGNOSTICS, LLC, Appeal No. 2016-1766 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2017). Before Lourie, Reyna, and Wallach. Appealed from N.D. Ohio (Judge Gaughan). (§101 Subject Matter Eligibility)

THALES VISIONIX INC. v. UNITED STATES, Appeal Nos. 2015-5150. (Fed. Cir. March 8, 2017). Before Moore, Wallach and Stoll. Appealed from Ct. Fed. Claims (Judge Moore). (Patent-Eligible Subject Matter)

APPLE, INC. v. AMERANTH, INC., Appeal Nos. 2015-1703, 2015-1704 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 29, 2016). Before Reyna, Chen, Stoll. Appealed from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. (Subject Matter Eligibility)

AMDOCS (ISRAEL) Ltd. v. OPENET TELECOM, INC., Appeal No. 2015-1180 (Fed. Cir. November 1, 2016). Before Newman, Plager, and Reyna. On appeal from E.D. Va (Judge Brinkema). (Subject Matter Eligibility – Abstract Idea)

INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC v. SYMANTEC CORP., Appeal Nos. 2015-1769, -1770, -1771 (Fed. Cir. September 30, 2016). Before Dyk, Mayer, and Stoll. Appealed from D. Del. (Judge Stark). (Subject Matter Eligibility)

AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, Appeal Nos. 2015-1845, 2015-1846, 2015-1847, 2015-1848. (Fed. Cir. September 23, 2016). Before Prost, Bryson and Wallach. Appealed from W.D. Tex. (Judge Smith). (Subject Matter Eligibility)

MCRO, INC. v. BANDAI NAMCO GAMES AM. INC., Appeal Nos. 2015-1080 through -1090 and -1092 through -1101 (Fed. Cir. September 13, 2016). Before Reyna, Taranto, and Stoll. Appealed from C.D. Cal. (Judge Wu). (Subject Matter Eligibility)

RAPID LITIGATION MANAGEMENT LTD. v. CELLZDIRECT, INC., Appeal No. 2015‑1570 (Fed. Cir. July 5, 2016). Before Prost, Moore and Stoll. Appealed from N.D. Ill. (Judge Shadur). (Patent Eligible Subject Matter, Law of Nature)

BASCOM GLOBAL INTERNET SERVICES, INC. v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC, Appeal No. 2015-1763 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2016). Before Newman, O’Malley and Chen. Appealed from N.D. Tex. (Judge Lynn). (Patent Eligible Subject Matter)

TLI COMMUNICATIONS LLC v. AV AUTOMOTIVE, L.L.C., Appeal Nos. 2015-1372, -1376-1379, -1382-1385, -1417, -1419, -1421 (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2016). Before Dyk, Schall and Hughes. Appealed from E.D. Va. (Judge Ellis). (Patent Eligible Subject Matter)

ENFISH, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORP., Appeal No. 2015-1244 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016). Before Moore, Tanto, and Hughes. Appealed from C.D. Cal. (Judge Pfaelzer). (Patentable Subject Matter)

GENETIC TECH. LTD. v. MERIAL L.L.C., Appeal Nos. 2015-1202 and 2015-1203 (Fed. Cir. April 8, 2016). Before Prost, Dyk, and Taranto. Appealed from D. Del. (Judge Stark). (Patent Eligibility)

IN RE SMITH, Appeal No. 2015-1664 (Fed. Cir. March 10, 2016). Before Moore, Hughes and Stoll. Appealed from PTAB. (Patentable Subject Matter – Alice)

ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC. v. SEQUENOM, INC., Appeal Nos. 2014-1139, -1144 (Fed. Cir. June 12, 2015). Before Reyna, Linn, and Wallach. Appealed from N.D. Cal. (Judge Illston). (Subject Matter Eligibility)

CONTENT EXTRACTION & TRANSMISSION LLC v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NAT’L ASS’N, Appeal Nos. 2013-1588, 2013-1589, 2014-1112, and 2014-1687 (Fed. Cir. December 23, 2014). Before Dyk, Taranto, and Chen. Appealed from D.N.J. (Judge Shipp). (Patent-Eligible Subject Matter)

UNIVERSITY OF UTAH RESEARCH FOUNDATION v. AMBRY GENETICS CORPORATION, Appeal Nos. 2014-1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. December 17, 2014). Before Dyk, Prost, and Clevenger. Appealed from D. Utah (Judge Shelby). (Patent-Eligible Subject Matter)

DDR HOLDINGS, LLC. v. HOTELS.COM, L.P., Appeal No. 2013-1505 (Fed. Cir. December 5, 2014). Before Wallach, Mayer and Chen. Appealed from E.D. Tex. (Judge Gilstrap). (Anticipation; Indefiniteness; Patent Eligible Subject Matter)

BUYSAFE, INC. v. GOOGLE, INC., Appeal No. 2013-1575 (Fed. Cir. September 3, 2014). Before Taranto and Hughes. Appealed from D. Del. (Judge Stark). (Subject Matter Eligibility-Abstract Idea)

DIGITECH IMAGE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC., v. ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING, INC., Appeal No. 2013-1600-1618 (Fed. Cir. July 11, 2014). Before Moore, Reyna, and Hughes. Appealed from C.D. Cal. (Judge Wright). (Subject Matter Eligibility-Abstract Idea)

ALICE CORP. PTY. LTD. v. CLS BANK INT’L, Appeal No. 2013-298 (U.S. June 19, 2014). Delivered by Thomas. Appealed from Fed. Cir. (en banc). (Patent Eligibility Under §101)

IN RE ROSLIN INSTITUTE, Appeal No. 2013-1407 (Fed. Cir. May 8, 2014). Before Dyk, Moore, and Wallach. Appealed from PTAB. (Patentable Subject Matter)