This morning the Federal Circuit issued two nonprecedential opinions in patent cases. Additionally, the court issued one Rule 36 judgment. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.
Mortgage Application Technologies, LLC v. Meridianlink, Inc. (Nonprecedential)
Mortgage Application Technologies, LLC (“MAT”) appeals the final decision of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California finding that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,548,902 (“’902 patent”) are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Mortg. Application Techs., LLC v. Meridianlink, Inc., No. 19-CV-704, 2020 WL 1000581 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2020). MeridianLink, Inc. (“MeridianLink”) cross-appeals from a separate decision that denied MeridianLink’s motion for attorney’s fees. Mortg. Application Techs., LLC v. Meridianlink, Inc., No. 19-CV704, 2020 WL 4187766 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2020). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court’s decision finding the ’902 patent invalid and affirm the denial of MeridianLink’s motion for attorney’s fees.
In re Sturgeon (Nonprecedential)
Patent applicant Jeannine A. Sturgeon appeals a decision of the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) affirming the Examiner’s rejection of her application under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Because the Board properly determined that Sturgeon’s application claims unpatentable subject matter under § 101, we affirm.