This morning the Federal Circuit released two precedential opinions. The first opinion comes in a patent case appealed from the Southern District of New York. In its opinion addressing patent eligibility, the Federal Circuit affirms the district court’s dismissal of assertions of infringement of two patents and reverses the district’s court’s dismissal of assertions of infringement of two different patents. Notably, Judge Hughes dissented in part. The second opinion comes in a case appealed from the Court of Federal Claims. In this opinion, the Federal Circuit affirms a decision that the Court of Federal Claims lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit also released two nonprecedential orders granting motions to voluntarily dismiss appeals. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissal.  

Weisner v. Google LLC (Precedential)

Sholem Weisner appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his patent infringement suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court held all of the asserted claims ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part.

HUGHES, Circuit Judge, dissenting-in-part.

I agree with the majority that the claims of the ’202 and ’910 patents are ineligible. I further agree that the claims of the ’905 and ’911 patents are directed to the abstract idea of “creating and using travel histories to improve computerized search results.” I dissent-in-part because I disagree with Part II.B of the majority’s analysis, determining that the claims of the ’905 and ’911 patents recite inventive concepts. Because the second amended complaint admits that the algorithms used to incorporate location data are routine and conventional, and because the claims do not solve a problem specific to the internet, I would affirm the district court’s determination that the claims of these two patents are ineligible.

Hekmati v. United States (Precedential)

The special master of the United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund awarded money to Amir Hekmati. Later, the special master reconsidered his decision and rejected Mr. Hekmati’s application to the Fund. Mr. Hekmati now appeals the United States Court of Federal Claims’ decision that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. Hekmati’s claim seeking payment of the money that the special master initially awarded him. See Hekmati v. United States, 153 Fed. Cl. 800 (2021). We conclude that 34 U.S.C. § 20144 precludes judicial review of the special master’s reconsideration decision. Accordingly, we affirm.