Patent eligibility challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been effective tools at the pleading stage for parties defending allegations of patent infringement. Defendants often attempt to avoid the costs of litigation by filing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 12(b)(6), seeking to invalidate the asserted patent(s) on the grounds that the claims are directed to ineligible subject matter — such as an “abstract idea.” Previously, a key tactic for plaintiffs to overcome such “Section 101 motions” was by amending the complaint and annexing an expert declaration. Recently, however, this strategy has been called into question due to a recent decision in Marble VOIP Partners LLC v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc.,
Recent Posts
- Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB Win for Apple, Finding Board Erred in Its Applicant-Admitted Prior Art Analysis
- IPWatchdog Masters Panelists Urge U.S. Government to Get Organized When It Comes to AI
- Fixing the PTAB: 10 Things the USPTO Can Do to Improve the PTAB | IPWatchdog Unleashed
- Fox Succeeds in Scrapping Machine Learning Claims at CAFC Under 101
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, April 18: CAFC Affirms Ineligibility of Machine Learning Claims; EPO’s Campinos Issues Opinion on Intervener Appeals; USPTO Ends Climate Change Mitigation Program