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
- USPTO Fee Report: Discounts Don’t Cut It for Incentivizing New Patent Participants
- Federal Circuit Splits on Whether Toddler Tub May Infringe
- CAFC Rules Patent Applications are Considered Pre-AIA Prior Art By Filing Date, Not Publication Date
- The Biden Administration Rolls the Dice on NIH Patent Licensing
- The PTAB’s 70% All-Claims Invalidation Rate Continues to Be a Source of Concern