Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 judgment in a patent eligibility case, Consumer 2.0, Inc. v. Tenant Turner, Inc., No. 19-1846 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The ruling affirmed the findings of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia that the claims of a a patent for a “method employing a combination of hardware and software for secure, automated entry of real property” were invalid for being directed to an abstract idea and, thus, were ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patented method essentially allows a user to enter a “durational” – rather than static – code on a lockbox in order to view a rental property without a realtor being present.
Consumer 2.0 v. Tenant: CAFC Skirts Another 101 Analysis with Rule 36
No Comments
Litigation
- Justices Lean Toward Limiting, Not Eliminating, Assignor Estoppel Doctrine in Minerva v. Hologic
- EPO Opposition Division Upholds NuCana Patent on Gilead’s Sovaldi, Highlighting Potential Flaws of CAFC Ruling in Gilead/Idenix
- NetSoc Appeals to SCOTUS, Claiming Improper Analysis of Social Network Patent Nixed Under 101
- The View from the Court’s 2 Live Crew: Examining the Thomas/Alito Dissent in Google v. Oracle
- Tillis, Michel and Iancu Back Ericsson in Heated International FRAND Dispute with Samsung
Recent Posts
- Justices Lean Toward Limiting, Not Eliminating, Assignor Estoppel Doctrine in Minerva v. Hologic
- Kappos at PTAB Masters Day 2: PTAB Problems Arose When It Failed to Evolve
- EPO Opposition Division Upholds NuCana Patent on Gilead’s Sovaldi, Highlighting Potential Flaws of CAFC Ruling in Gilead/Idenix
- Countries Like the Philippines are Unable to Utilize IP Flexibilities to Fight COVID-19
- Why the Patent Classification System Needs an Update