The Magistrate Judge in his report and recommendation invalidated Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,509,286 (“’286 Patent”), with a cursory analysis on summary judgment, failing to provide an Alice Step 2 analysis or any analysis at all of the over 1,400 pages of evidence supporting the unconventional, non-routine, and inventive aspects of claim. The District Court then adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report, after erroneously characterizing the briefing by Island, with a statement merely commenting that all Island’s evidence was “unavailing,” and no more. On appeal, the Federal Circuit failed to cure any of these deficiencies, instead issuing an order under Federal Circuit Rule 36 simply stating “affirmed” and nothing more. This case is thus a poster child of how patent cases are increasingly deviating from the norms of civil procedure.
Recent Posts
- Other Barks and Bites for Friday, October 10: SCOTUS Invites SG’s Views on RiseandShine’s Trademark Issues; MPA Urges OpenAI to Address Sora 2 Infringement; and UPC to Add Third Panel to Court of Appeal
- IP Experts Remind UKIPO: Global Device Markets Thrive Under Arm’s-Length SEP Licensing
- PERA 2025 Debated in Senate IP Subcommittee Hearing, with Business Methods, Diagnostics in Focus
- Patent Policy in the Trump Administration: What’s Next for the USPTO? | IPWatchdog Unleashed
- If You Care About the Patent System, Consider Filing an Amicus Brief in Hyatt