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
- U.S. Government’s Intervention in Patent Case Signals Good News for Patent Owners Seeking Injunctions
- Gaming Patent Litigation on Both Sides of the ‘v’ | IPWatchdog Unleashed
- Recentive Rehearing Petition Challenges CAFC’s Broad Section 101 Exclusion of Machine Learning Inventions
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, June 20: Advocate General Tells CJEU to Affirm €4 Billion Antitrust Fine Against Google; Recentive Challenges Section 101 Invalidation of Machine Learning Claims
- Stewart Expands on ‘Settled Expectations’ Criteria in Interim Discretionary Denial Process