Here’s the latest.

No Importing Limitations from Specification in § 101 Analysis

Reported by Thomas DaMario on

In a recent post, Thomas DaMario recaps the result in Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd. The Federal Circuit held that Ericsson’s asserted claims were invalid under § 101. However, the more interesting issue on appeal was whether

by failing to raise the issue in its post-trial JMOL, TCL waived its right to an appeal on the issue of 101 eligibility.

The Federal Circuit held that TCL did not waive its right. Despite this result, DaMario noted the following:

Both the majority and dissent looked to Federal Circuit precedent and the precedent of the regional circuit to inform the decision regarding waiver. Although the majority ultimately found that no waiver had occurred, both the majority and dissent acknowledged that compelling circumstances are required in order for a circuit court to disregard the rule of waiver in order to hear an issue on appeal. Thus, in the majority of circumstances, it is still necessary to file a Rule 50 motion in order to properly preserve issues for appeal.

For more on this case, see our coverage.

Google Asks Full Fed. Circ. Not to Rehear Venue Ruling

Reported by Tiffany Hu on

In a recent post, Tiffany Hu discusses why Google urged the Federal Circuit not to rehear In re Google LLC en banc.

Google said the panel correctly found that its servers in the Eastern District of Texas were ‘merely connected’ to its business and that the relevant statute made clear that an employee or agent must actually be ‘carrying out’ its business to make venue there proper.

Tiffany Hu also noted that Google has removed its servers from the district but conceded that that fact wouldn’t change the jurisdiction of the case.

For more on this case, see our coverage.

Federal Circuit Revives Cardiac Monitoring Patent

Reported by Anthony Fuga on

In Cardionet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the claims at issue were patent eligible under § 101. The Federal Circuit also found that

the court could resolve Alice step one at the Rule 12 stage without remanding to assess the state of the art as of the invention date

because Alice step one is a legal question that can be answered using intrinsic evidence.

For more on this case, see our coverage.