Bilski v. Kappos

140 Citing briefs

  1. Dynamic 3D Geosolutions LLC v. Schlumberger Limited (Schlumberger N.V.) et al

    MOTION to Dismiss Motion to Dismiss Complaint

    Filed March 31, 2014

    C. The Claims Also Fail The Machine-Or-Transformation Test The ’319 patent claims also fail both prongs of the so-called “machine-or-transformation test” ‒ which, although not the “sole test,” can be “a useful and important clue, an investigative tool, for determining whether some claimed inventions are [patentable] processes under § 101.” Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3227. First, the patent claims are not tied to “a particular machine.”

  2. TQP Development, LLC v. Intuit Inc.

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed December 26, 2013

    2008) (en banc) (discussing Benson, 409 U.S. at 65, 70-72), aff’d sub nom. Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218. Third, even if these claim terms—“transmitter,” “receiver,” or “communication link”— were deemed a particular machine, they at most limit use of the recited mathematical operations to a field of use, namely “systems for transmitting enciphered data” as stated in the patent (’730 Patent, 1:12-14.)

  3. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company v. Phoenix Licensing L.L.C. et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed October 19, 2011

    A marketing campaign based on “back-and-forth conversations” is plainly a basic business concept that is not entitled to patent protection. See Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231 (finding unpatentable claims directed to the abstract idea of “hedging risk”); CLS Bank, 768 F. Supp. 2d at 243 (finding unpatentable claims directed to the abstract idea of employing an intermediary to facilitate simultaneous exchange of obligations); Graff/Ross Holdings, 2010 WL 6274263, at *6 (finding that “‘how business should be conducted,’ is a general concept that is unlikely patent-eligible.”) (quoting USPTO Interim Bilski Guidance, 75 Fed. Reg.

  4. Edge Capture L.L.C. et al v. Barclays Bank PLC et al

    RESPONSE

    Filed October 4, 2010

    In Bilski, the method claims were tethered to no machines at all. Bilski, 130 S.Ct. at 3224, 3231. In direct contrast, the asserted method claims of the patents-in-suit are implemented by and tethered to inherently-claimed, particular and inventive machines.

  5. Edge Capture L.L.C. et al v. Barclays Bank PLC et al

    RESPONSE

    Filed October 4, 2010

    In Bilski, the method claims were tethered to no machines at all. Bilski, 130 S.Ct. at 3224, 3231. In direct contrast, the asserted method claims of the patents-in-suit are implemented by and tethered to inherently-claimed, particular and inventive machines.

  6. Crypto Research, Llc v. Assa Abloy, Inc. et al

    Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

    Filed August 11, 2016

    “helper values,” “one-way chain,” and “subset” are part of the abstract idea itself. Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610-12. B. The Complaint Fails to State a Claim for Direct Infringement.

  7. Loramax LLC v. The Dreyfus Corporation

    MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

    Filed August 31, 2015

    A claimed process can be patent-eligible under § 101 if: “(1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing.” In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 954 (Fed.Cir.2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, Bilski, 561 U.S. 593. III. ARGUMENT A. Distributing Information Based On User Preferences Is An Abstract Idea The first step under Alice is to determine whether the claims of the patent-in-suit are directed to a “patent-ineligible concept”—i.e., an abstract idea.

  8. Presqriber, LLC v. Practice Fusion, Inc.

    MOTION to Dismiss and Brief in Support

    Filed August 4, 2014

    Additionally, Alice held that if the purported inventive Case 6:14-cv-00460-KNM Document 11 Filed 08/04/14 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 134 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS – Page 12 quality of a patent claim is its implementation on a “generic” computer, the claim will still be drawn to ineligible subject matter under § 101. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (“the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”) (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3230). Here, the purported invention recited by the claims of the ’095 Patent does nothing more than implement the abstract idea described above on a generic computer system.

  9. DietGoal Innovations LLC v. Bravo Media LLC (Division of NBC Universal Media, LLC)

    RESPONSE re: 127 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Patent Ineligibility Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101. Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant Bravo Media LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment of Patent Ineligibility Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Sec. 101. Document

    Filed April 8, 2014

    The `516 Patent does not claim any fundamental truth. Nowhere do the claims recite a mathematical formula, or a fundamental practice that can be “reduced to a mathematical formula,” Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231, or any other form of fundamental truth that “exists in principle apart from any human action,” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297. To the contrary, the system claims of the `516 Patent recite a computer-implemented system requiring a specific configuration of computer hardware and software, with specified functions.

  10. ORG Structure Innovation, LLC v. Oracle Corporation et al

    MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint

    Filed June 15, 2012

    The Asserted Patents’ claims suffer from a similar defect, describing little other than “real world” business concepts, with claims that are so abstract and untethered to any particular solution that they would preempt conventional business activity. See Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231. 5 Dealertrack also held that claims that fail to cover a particular algorithm cannot be saved by flowchart algorithms in the specification: “The fact that certain algorithms are disclosed in the specification does not change the outcome.