Portuguese   Portuguese
English   English

Patent Caselaw Quality & Section 101


CAFC Decisions Relating to 101

       As an extension of the standardized database of 101 caselaw (www.global-patent-quality.com/caselaw.html), is a list of CAFC decisions relating to 101, 112 and other issues. This is not a complete list, but rather a list of decisions that are being analyzed as part of our 101 project.

U.S. CAFC Decisions by month - DCT cases




    • MARCH 2015

    • Stryker Corporation v. Zimmer - 2013-1668 [DAMAGES]
      - reverse a district court's finding of willful infringement

    • Cadence Pharmaceuticals v. Exela - 2014-1184 [S112]
      - affirms a district court's claim construction involving "buffering agent"

    • Flexiteek Americas v. Plasteak - 2014-1214 [S112]
      - affirms claim construction of "longitudinal slots"

    • Mobilemedia Ideas v. Apple - 2014-1060 [S112]
      - reversal with some claim construction issues

    • Enzo Biochem v. Applera - 2014-1321 [S112]
      - reverses district court claim construction concerningthe term "signalling moiety"

    • Eidos Display v. AU Optronics - 2014-1254 [S112]
      - reverses district court finding of indefiniteness

    • Warsaw Orthopedic v. Nuvasive - 2013-1576 [S112]
      - upholds infringement based on claim construction

    • FEBRUARY 2015

    • Biax Corp. v. Nvidia & Sony - 2013-1649 [FEES]
      - reverses awarding of some fees, and upholds not awarding of fees

    • Pacing Technologies v. Garmin International - 2014-1396 [S112]
      - upholds non-infringement based on claim preamble language

    • Soverain Software v. Victoria's Secret - 2012-1649 [S103]
      - reverses Soverain's earlier win, after Soverain's patents were invalidated in another case

    • Fenner Investments v. Cellco Partnership - 2013-1640 [S112]
      - upholds non-infringement based on claim construction

    • Lexington Luminance v. Amazon - 2014-1384 [S112]
      - reverses claim construction that found claim indefinite

    • FenF LLC v. SmartThingz - 2014-1490 [S112]
      - reverses district court, which erred in claim construction of "separators"

    • Papst Licensing v. FujiFilm Corporation - 2014-1110 [S112]
      - reverses district court, which erred in five claim constructions

    • JANUARY 2015

    • NeuroRepair v. Nath Law Group and Robert Cogan - 2013-1073 [FEES]
      - orders federal district court to remand patent law firm malpractice case back to the California state court system

    • Teashot v. Green Mountain Coffee Roaster - 2014-1323 [S112]
      - upholds non-infringement based on claim construction

    • DECEMBER 2014

    • Walker Digital v. Expedia/Amazon/AA/Zappos - 2013-1520 [STANDING]
      - upholds troll can't sued because it transferred all interest to eBay, and thus lacks standing

    • Context Extraction and Transmission v. Wells Fargo and PNC - 2013-1588 [S101]
      - upholds invalidation of 5,258,855 (and three continuations) using Mayo's and Alice's 103 and 103 illogic - also upholds dismissal of RICO charges

    • Datatern v. Epicor et al. - 2013-1251 [S112]
      - reverses district court's finding of non-infringement because of claim construction problems re U.S. 6,101,502's "to create at least one interface object"

    • Univ. of Utah Research v. Ambry Genetics - 2014-1361 [S101]
      - upholds denial of injunction because asserted BRCA1/BRCA2 gene patents are ineligible subject matter under 101

    • Promega Corp v. Life Technologies et al. - 2013-1011 [S112]
      - upholds ruling of lack of enablement for four Promega patents, involving the term "a set of ... loci ..."

    • Tomita Technologies v. Nintendo - 2014-1244 [S112]
      - upholds three claim constructions, but remands a fourth for the phrase "offset presetting means"

    • DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com - 2013-1505 [S102]
      - upholds ruling of infringement/validity for 7,818,399, but rules that 6,993,572 is invalid for being anticipated (by Digital River's prior SSS sysem)

    • Ericsson and WiFi One v. D-Link Systems et al. - 2013-1625 [DAMAGES]
      - remands for new damages calculations after ruling that one of three infringed patents actually wasn't valid

    • Tristrata v. Microsoft - 2014-1168 [S112]
      - upholds non-infringement ruling made after parties agreed to claim construction

    • Par Pharmaceutical v. TWI Pharmaceuticals - 2014-1391 [S103]
      - reverses finding of obviousness for biotech patent U.S. 7,101,576

    • NOVEMBER 2014

    • Nazomi Communications v. Microsoft et al. - 2014-1173 [S112]
      - upholds district court ruling of non-infringement after claim construction for U.S. 7,080,362; 7,225,436; and 6,338,160 - Java accelerator technology

    • Vehicle IP v. ATT Mobility et al. - 2013-1380 [S112]
      - district court erred in constructing "expected time of arrival" and "way point(s)" for U.S. 5,987,377

    • Ultramerical v. Hulu/Wildtanger (THIRD TIME AROUND) - 2010-1544 [S101]
      - we don't have the balls to challenge the Supreme Court's Alice nonsense, and reverse our two earlier decisions that the patent satisfied 101

    • Walker Digital v. Microsoft - 2013-1584 [S112]
      - Microsoft didn't infringe the troll's patent as constructed by the district court, nor does it infringe "even under a modified construction"

    • Azure Networks v. CSR Plc - 2013-1459 [S112]
      - district court erred in constructing "MAC address" for U.S. 7,756,129

    • Williamson (trustee) v. Citrix Online et al. - 2013-1130 [S112]
      - remanded because district court erroneously constructed "graphical display representative of a classroom", "first graphical display comprising ... a classroom region" and "distributed learning control module" for U.S. 6,155,840

    • OCTOBER 2014

    • Iris Corp. v. Japan Airlines - 2010-1051 [S1498]
      - upholds non-infringement because Japan Airlines was following orders of the U.S. Government to inspect passports

    • World Class Technology v. Ormco Corp. - 2013-1679 [S112]
      - upholds claim construction as being sufficient to determine non-infringement

    • Cardsoft v. Verifone and Ingenico - 2014-1135 [S112]
      - district court's claim construction for "virtual machine" was incorrect, so district court's finding of infringement is reversed, for U.S. patents 6,934,945 and 7,302,683

    • Robert Bosch v. Snap-On - 2014-1040 - [S112]
      - upholds district court's ruling that the terms "program recognition device" and "program loading device" are indefinte, and thus all claims of 6,782,313 are invalid

    • SEPTEMBER 2014

    • American Calcar v. America Honda Motors - 2013-1061 [CONDUCT]
      - upholds district court's ruling that three Calcar patents are invalid for inequitable conduct - that one of the inventors withheld prior art from the PTO, for U.S. patents 6,330,497, 6,438,465 and 6,542,795

    • Virnetx v. SAIC - 2013-1489 [S112]
      - upholds district court's claim construction for "domain name", and reverses for "secure communication link", for U.S. patents 7,418,504 and 7,921,211

    • Interval Licensing v. AOL - 2013-1282 [S112]
      - upholds indefinite claims, modifies construction of "instructions", and reverses construction of "during operation of an attention manager", for U.S. patents 6,034,652 and 6,788,314

    • Homeland Housewares v. Sorensen Research - 2013-1537 [FEES]
      - upholds awarding of attonery fees

    • EPOS Technologies v. Pegasus Technologies - 2013-1330 [S112]
      - district court incorrectly constructed "drawing implement", "given time interval", "marking implement" and "temporary attachment" - for U.S. patents: 6,266,051; 6,326,565; 6,392,330; 6,501,461; 6,724,371; and 6,841,742

    • BuySafe v. Google - 2013-1575 [S101]
      - upholds that 7,644,019 is invalid under 101 re Alice/CLS Bank

    • AUGUST 2014

    • Planet Bingo v. VKGS - 2013-1663 [S101]
      - upholds that 6,398,646 and 6,656,045 are invalid under 101 re ALice/CLS Bank

    • American Radio v. Qualcomm et al. - 2013-1641 [S112]
      - upholds claim construction for "analog signal", "digitized signal", "IF" and "reconstruction", for U.S. patents 5,864,754; 7,831,233; 8,045,942; 8,170,519; and 8,280,334

    • I/P Engine v. AOL, Google et al. - 2013-1307 [S103]
      - reverses district court's non-obvious determination, for U.S. patents 6,314,420 and 6,775,664

    • John Gammino v. Sprint and Virgin Mobile - 2013-1636 [S112]
      - upholds construction of telecommunications terms, for U.S. patent 5,809,125

    • Amdocs Limited v. Openet Telecom - 2013-1212 [S112]
      - upholds construction of "enhance" and "completing" of records of telecom services, but reverses for construction of "single record", for U.S. paetnts 7,631,065; 7,412,510; and 6,947,984

    • JULY 2014

    • Digitech Image Technologies v. Electronics for Imaging et al. - 2013-1600 [S101]
      - upholds district court's rejection under 101 that a simple, barely structured data structure claimed in U.S. patent 6,128,415, was invalid, using Benson, Flook and Alice

    • VirtualAgility v. SalesForce.com - 2014-1232 [STAY]
      - reverses district court's denial of stay while a PGR is being processed by the PTO, for U.S. patent 8,095,413

    • JUNE 2014

    • Hill-Rom Services v. Stryker Corp. - 2013-1450 [S112]
      - reverses non-infringement ruling because district court erred in claim constructionn for the terms "datalink", "interface board for a processor", "message validation information", and "bed condition message", for U.S. patents 5,699,038; 6,147,592; and 7,538,659

    • Lochner Technologies v. Vizio - 2013-1551 [S112]
      - reverses non-infringement ruling because district court erred in claim construction for the terms "including/comprising", for U.S. patent 7,035,598

    • Rotatable Technologies v. Motorola Mobility - 2014-1042 [S112]
      - upholds district court's ruling that "selectively rotating" in the preamble was relied upon enough in the spec that it becomes a claim limitation, for U.S. patent 6,326,978

    • Augme Technologies v. Yahoo - 2013-1121 [S112]
      - upholds district court's ruling that one party's claims were indefinite while the other party's claims were definite - terms include "service response", "embedded first code module", "means for assembling [code]" and "server host name", 6,594,691 and 7,269,636

    • Gemalto v. HTC Corp. - 2013-1397 [S112]
      - affirms district court's claim construction "memory", "resource constraints", and "programmable device", for U.S. patent 6,308,317; 7,117,485; and 7,818,727

    • Triton Tech of Texas v. Nintendo of America - 2013-1476 [S112]
      - upholds district court's claim ruling that "integrator means" was indefinite, for U.S. patent 5,181,181

    • Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Teva Pharmaceuticals - 2013-1306 [S103]
      - upholds that U.S. patent 5,205,244 is obvious, a nucleoside analog

    • Allergan v. Apotex - 2013-1245 [S112, S101]
      - affirms claim construction for "treating hair loss" and that prior art was not anticipatory, but reversed that the prior art didn't make the patent obvious, for U.S. patents 7,388,029 and 7,351,404

    • MAY 2014

    • Suffolk Technologies v. AOL Inc. - 2013-1392 [S112, S101]
      - affirms claim construction "generating said supplied file", and then that patent was not novel, for U.S. patent 6,081,835

    • Oracle America v. Google - 2013-1021 [17USC]
      - reverses correct decision that software APIs are not copyrightable, using bad logic to rule that they are copyrightable

    • GE Lighting Solutions v. Agilight - 2013-1267 [S112]
      - district court incorrectly construed "IDC connector", has to reconsider meaning of "substantially ellipsoidal inner profile" and "generally spherical outer profile", but construed "annular gasket" correctly, for U.S. patents 7,160,140; 7,520,771; 7,832,896; and 7,633,055

    • APRIL 2014

    • Apple v. Motorola - 2012-1548 [S112]
      - upholds/reverses district court's claim constructions: questioned the "structure" and "means" implied in the use of the word "heuristic" to then reverse district court ruling that "heuristic" was indefinite; but agree with district court's construction of "analyzer server" and "linking actions to the detected structures" and agrees with district court construction of "realtime", and agrees with district court that step three in a method has to occur after steps one and two

    • Braintree Laboratories v. Novel Laboratories - 2013-1438 [S112]
      - rules that district court erred in constructing the term "clinicallly significant electrolyte shifts", for U.S. patent 6,946,149

    • Jack Cartner v. Alamo Group - 2013-1293 [FEES]
      - upholds awards of attorney fees of $358,516 to party that won a non-infringement decision, for U.S. patent 5,197,284

    • Univ. of Pittsburgh v. Varian Medical Systems - 2012-1575 [S112]
      - upholds claim construction for one claim, but reverses for another claim, for U.S. patent 5,727,554

    • United Video Properties v. Amazon - 2013-1396 [S112]
      - upholds claim construction for "data feed" and "interactive program guide", for U.S. patents 6,769,128 and 7,603,690

    • CBOE v. ISE - 2013-1326 [S112]
      - reverses district court ruling that claim 2 was indefinite, because specification discloses algorithm for "matching on a pro rata basis", for U.S. patent 6,618,707

    • Howlink Global v. Network Communications - 2013-1181 [S112]
      - upholds claim construction for "temporarily transmitting voice of a caller to the called terminal to identify the caller when the second communication link is established", and "prohibiting voice transmission until a collect call acceptance arrives after the temporary voice transmission", for U.S. patent 7,876,744

    • MARCH 2014

    • Shire Development v. Watson Pharmaceuticals - 2013-1409 [S112]
      - does not uphold district court claim construction for "inner lipophilic matrix" and "outer lipophilic matrix", for U.S. patent 6,773,720

    • Vederi v. Google - 2013-1057 [S112]
      - does not uphold district court claim construction for "substantial elevations" of views for images being taken, for U.S. patents 7,239,760; 7,577,316; 7,805,025; and 7,813,596

    • Bose Corp. v. SDI Technologies and Imation - 2013-1347 [S112]
      - upholds district court claim construction for "interface", "interface unit", "interface device" and "interface module"

    • E2Interactive v. Blackhawk Network - 2013-1141 [S112]
      - does not uphold claim construction for "terminal identifier", for U.S. patent 7,277,765

    • Ancora Technologies v. Apple - 2013-1378 [S112]
      - squabbles over claim construction for "program", "volatile memory" and "non-volatile memory", for U.S. patent 6,411,941

    • FEBRUARY 2014

    • Cyberphone Systems v. CNN et al. - 2012-1673 [S101]
      - upholds district court's invalidation of U.S. patent 8,019,060 under Section 101, relying on Bilski, Mayo, Cybersource and Accenture

    • ElCommerce.com v. SAP - 2011-1369 [S112]
      - upholds district court's claim construction for "independent supply chain sites", "scanning for", "detecting" and "monitoring for changed supply-related data information" - for U.S. patent 6,947,903

    • Starhome GmbH v. ATT Mobility et al. - 2012-1694 [S112]
      - upholds district court construction for "intelligent gateway" for U.S. patent 6,920,487

    • GlaxoSmithKline v. Banner Pharmacaps et al. - 2013-1593 [S112]
      - upholds district court construction of "solvate" for U.S. patent 5,565,467

    • Frans Nooren Afdichtingssystem v. Stopaq Amcorr - 2013-1200 [S112]
      - does not uphold district court construction that "a filler" can contain only "one material", and does not uphold district court construction that "prolypropylene is not a filler" for U.S. patent 5,898,044

    • Lighting Ballast Control v. Philips Electronics - 2012-1013 [S112]
      - En Banc ruling (6-4) upholds the court's Cybor standard of de novo review of claim construction

    • Takeda Pharmaceutical v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals - 2013-1406 [S112]
      - affirms district court ruling that U.S. patent 6,328,994 is invalid for being indefinite for lack of enablement

    • Butamax Advanced Biofuels v. Gevo - 2013-1342 [S112]
      - for U.S. patents 7,851,188 and 7,993,889, does not uphold district court's claim construction for a patent-owner supplied definition included in the specification for KARI (keto-acid reductoisomerase)

    • Solvay S.A. v. Honeywell International - 2012-1660 [S102]
      - affirms claim 1 of 6,730,817 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(2), in the case, Russian invention reduced to practice in U.S. before priority date

    • Lighting Ballast v. Philips Electronics - 2012-1014 [S112]
      - reaffirms Cybor standard of de novo review of claim construction

    • Pfizer et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals et al. - 2012-1576 [S112]
      - upholds claim construction related to U.S. patents: 6,197,819; 5,563,175; 6,001,876; and RE41920

    • JANUARY 2014

    • Realtime Data v. Morgan Stanley, et al. - 2013-1092 [S112, NON-INFR]
      - affirms that several claims of 7,714,747 and 7,777,651 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, and other claims non-infringed, for terms including "descriptor indicates", "data field/block type", "data stream"

    • SmartGene v. Advanced Biological Lab - 2013-1186 [S101]
      - affirms that all claims of 6,081,786 and 6,188,988 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101, relying on CyberSource's mental steps argument

    • Proveris Scientific v. Innovasystems - 2013-1166 [FEES]
      - reverses district court award of $878,205 in sanctions, and orders further claim construction

    • Nazomi v. Nokia, Amazon, et al. - 2013-1165 [NON-INFR]
      - upholds district court ruling of non-infringement after claim construction for U.S. patents 7,080,362 and 7,225,436; district court construed claims to require hardware and software, rejecting Nazomi's construction that required only hardware for processing Java bytecodes

    • DECEMBER 2013

    • Kilopass Technology v. Sidense Corp. - 2013-1193 [NON-INFR, FEES]
      - upheld district court ruling of non-infringement - vacated district court ruling denying fees and remanded for reconsideration of awarding fees - no need for 'smoking gun' in proving bad faith

    • Galderma Labs v. Tolmar Inc. - 2013-1034 [OBV]
      - district court ruled drug patents not obvious - CAFC reversed

    • Clearvalue v. Pearl River Polymers - 2012-1595 [FEES]
      - upheld district court that Clearvalue had to pay costs for losing

    • NOVEMBER 2013

    • Lee v. Mike's Novelties - 2013-1049 [FEES]
      - $231,025 awarded for attorneys fees as exceptional case, after awarding $40,000 in lost profits and $70,000 for willful infringement; CAFC reversed willful infringement, and remand to consider exceptional just based on infringement

    • OCTOBER 2013

    • Integrated Technology v. Rudolph Technologies - 2012-1593 [FEES]
      - vacate award of attorney's fees which was based on infringement under doctrine of equivalents (which the CAFC reversed) that was willful (also reversed)

    • Synthes USA v. Spinal Kinetics - 2013-1047 [FEES]
      - while patent was indeed invalid, claims and assertion wasn't baseless to be an exceptional case, and thus no attorneys' fees awarded

    • Ibormeith IP v. Mercedes-Benz USA - 2013-1007 [S112]
      - affirms district court ruling of invalidity for indefiniteness for means-plus-function claims in patent asserted by Niro Scavone

    • Intellect Wireless v. HTC Corp. - 2012-1658 [S102]
      - upholds patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct by inventor in lying about reduction to practice

    • SEPTEMBER 2013

    • Juxtacomm-Texas Software v. Tibco Software et al. - 2013-1004 [S112]
      - upholds district court finding U.S. 6,195,662 was invalid under 35 USC 112(2)

    • Accenture v. Guidewire Software - 2011-1486 [S101]
      - Lourie upholds rejection of 7,013,284, claims 1-7, as being invalid under 101

    • AUGUST 2013

    • Cooper Notification v. Twitter et al. - 2012-1615 [NON-INFR]
      - upholds ruling that defendants didn't infringe claims 12-18 of U.S. 7,409,428

    • Applied Medical Resources v. Tyco Healthcare - 2012-1412 [NON-INFR]
      - upholds ruling that Tyco didn't infringe RE 42,379

    • Skinmedica v. Histogen - 2012-1560 [NON-INFR]
      - upholds ruling that Histogen didn't infringe 6,372,494 and 7,118,746, arguing over meaning of "culturing cells in three dimensions"

    • Hamilton Beach Brands v. Sunbeam Products - 2012-1581 [S101]
      - U.S. 7,947,928 is not novel for violating on-sale bar

    • Monolithic Power Systems v. O2 Micro - 2012-1221 [FEES]
      - Upholds ruling that Monolithic (and partner ASUSTek) are entitled to attorney fees due to finding of an exceptional case

    • Taurus IP v. Daimler Chrysler - 2008-1462/3/4/5 [FEES]
      - Upholds ruling of invalidity of claims 16 and 27 of U.S. 6,141,658 (bizmet patent) and attorney fees of $1,644,906 because case was exceptional

    • Rembrandt Vision Tech v. Johnson & Johnson - 2012-1510 [NON-INFR]
      - affirms ruling that J&J doesn't infringe RVT's 5,712,327 dealing with contact lenses

    • JULY 2013

    • Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz - 2012-1567 [S112]
      - holds one set of drugs claims are invalid for indefiniteness, while holding second set of claims not proven to be indefinite

    • Charles Machine Works v. Vermeer Manufacturing - 2012-1578 [NON-INFR]
      - upholds literal non-infringement, reverse that there is no non-literal infringement under doctrine of equivalents

    • Novozymes v. DuPont, Genencor, Danisco - 2012-1433 [S112]
      - upholds district court's JMOL that claims of 7,713,723 fail enablement and written description requirement

    • Fresenius USA v. Baxter International - 2012-1334 [REEX]
      - during trial and appeal that found claims valid and infringed, in parallel, PTO in reexamination declared asserted claims invalid. PTO trumps, there is no cause for action, case is dismissed

    return to top