Interactive Wearables, LLC v. Polar Electro Oy

DOCKET NO.

21-1281

OP. BELOW

Fed. Cir.

SUBJECT

Patent

Question(s) Presented

“The patents-in-suit are directed to an electronic hardware device comprising a content player/remote- control combination having numerous concretely-recited components that undisputedly qualifies as a ‘machine’ or ‘manufacture’ under the statutory language of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Nevertheless, the court below found the claims of the patents-in-suit invalid under Section 101, on a motion to dismiss, for claiming nothing more than the abstract idea of ‘providing information in conjunction with media content.’ As a justification for disregarding each recited structural component from its characterization of what the claims are ‘directed to,’ the court resorted to a factual, enablement-style analysis of the level of detail in the specification and declared it insufficient to support patentability.”

“The questions presented are:”

“What is the appropriate standard for determining whether a patent claim is ‘directed to’ a patent-ineligible concept under step one of the Court’s two-step framework for determining whether an invention is eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101?”
“Is patent eligibility (at each step of the Court’s two-step framework) a question of law for the court based on the scope of the claims or a question of fact for the jury based on the state of art at the time of the patent?”
“Is it proper to apply 35 U.S.C. §112 considerations to determine whether a patent claims eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101?”