Interactive Wearables, LLC v. Polar Electro Oy

 
DOCKET NO.
OP. BELOW
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:”

  1. “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?”
  2. “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?”
  3. “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?”
Date
Proceedings and Orders
April 20, 2022
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/12/2022.
April 27, 2022
Response Requested. (Due May 27, 2022)
May 18, 2022
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including June 27, 2022.