Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp. et al., No. 2015-1769, 2015-1770, 2015-1771, September 30, 2016 (precedential) (2-1) ; U.S. Patent Nos. 6,460,050, 6,073,142 and 5,987,610

Key point(s):

• The fact that a claim is neither anticipated nor obvious over prior art does not resolve the question of whether a claim is ineligible under § 101.
• The Federal Circuit continues to cite no “improve [ment to] the functioning of the computer itself” to be a justification for holding computer software claims ineligible.
• An idea that originated with computers can still be abstract under § 101 if it is a long prevalent practice by the time a patent is filed.

Intertainer, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, No. 2015-2065, September 26, 2016 (nonprecedential) (3-0); U.S. Patent No. 8,479,246

Key point(s):

• The doctrine of waiver precludes a party from adopting a new claim construction position on appeal, but waiver does not preclude a party from clarifying or defending the original scope of its claim construction, or from supporting its existing claim construction position with new citations to the specification.

Drone Technologies, Inc. v. Parrot S.A., 2015-1892, 2015-1955, September 29, 2016, (precedential) (3-0); U.S. Patent No. Nos. 7,584,071 and 8,106,748

Key point(s):

• The court did not have to undertake a substantive examination of inventorship to resolve an issue of standing, where the plaintiff’s claim to title is not otherwise in dispute.
• Defendants could challenge inventorship by raising the defense that a patent is invalid for failing to name the correct inventors.

Lyda v. CBS Corp., 2015-1923, September 30, 2016 (precedential) (3-0); U.S. Patent Nos. 7,434,243 and 7,730,506

Key point(s):

• The Twombly/Iqbal pleading standard for joint patent infringement is not satisfied by Form 18 because joint infringement requires additional elements not addressed by Form 18.