What do you think?
Rate this book
Software Patents: Litigator's Casebook
This casebook contains a selection of 180 software patent decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The opinions span from 2000 through 2011 and are organized by year of decision. The opinions are listed in the order of frequency of citation so that the most cited opinions appear higher in each section.
We highlight four recent decisions:
Online, movie-distributor, Hulu allegedly infringes on patent claims that describe a method for distributing copyrighted digital products over the Internet. The claimed invention charges an advertiser for content delivered to consumers. The federal circuit remands and reverses the district court's finding that the process described is not patent-eligible subject matter. Ultramercial v. Hulu LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Qwest Communications allegedly infringes on Centillion's patented process of collecting, processing, and delivering billing information from a service provider to its clients in electronic format. The district court rules in favor of Qwest's summary judgment motion. Upon review, the federal circuit finds there are a number of unresolved material issues of fact. Among them, is the question, whether a prior art system generated "summary reports as specified by the user" in accordance with the disputed patent's claims. Centillion Data Systems v. Qwest Communications, 631 F. 3d 1279 (Fed. Cir 2011)
Microsoft is accused of infringing a patented process that describes a software registration system to deter the unlicensed use of software. The federal circuit finds that Microsoft's activation system uses the same algorithm as described by the patent's claims. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F. 3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Fiserv alleges that its patent to prevent check fraud is infringed. The court cites its prior ruling in Uniloc, supra, to support its holding that a finding of infringement does not require the infringer to complete each and every step of the patent's claims. Some claims serve as preambles that define the environment in which an accused infringer must act or otherwise describe capabilities that an accused device must have. Advanced Software Design Corp. v. Fiserv, Inc., 641 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
We highlight four recent decisions:
Online, movie-distributor, Hulu allegedly infringes on patent claims that describe a method for distributing copyrighted digital products over the Internet. The claimed invention charges an advertiser for content delivered to consumers. The federal circuit remands and reverses the district court's finding that the process described is not patent-eligible subject matter. Ultramercial v. Hulu LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Qwest Communications allegedly infringes on Centillion's patented process of collecting, processing, and delivering billing information from a service provider to its clients in electronic format. The district court rules in favor of Qwest's summary judgment motion. Upon review, the federal circuit finds there are a number of unresolved material issues of fact. Among them, is the question, whether a prior art system generated "summary reports as specified by the user" in accordance with the disputed patent's claims. Centillion Data Systems v. Qwest Communications, 631 F. 3d 1279 (Fed. Cir 2011)
Microsoft is accused of infringing a patented process that describes a software registration system to deter the unlicensed use of software. The federal circuit finds that Microsoft's activation system uses the same algorithm as described by the patent's claims. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F. 3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Fiserv alleges that its patent to prevent check fraud is infringed. The court cites its prior ruling in Uniloc, supra, to support its holding that a finding of infringement does not require the infringer to complete each and every step of the patent's claims. Some claims serve as preambles that define the environment in which an accused infringer must act or otherwise describe capabilities that an accused device must have. Advanced Software Design Corp. v. Fiserv, Inc., 641 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
3652 pages, Kindle Edition
First published December 10, 2011
2 people are currently reading
5 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
No one has reviewed this book yet.