Patent Riffs and Links for 11-29-16 – Alice and 101 commentary; Huawei-Samsung case

Huawei Notches Win Over Samsung in Patent Skirmish | THE RECORDERHuawei’s patents survive 101 challenge (article is free on desktop site) “U.S. District Judge William Orrick of San Francisco on Monday rejected Samsung’s attempt to invalidate two of the 11 patents asserted by Huawei for claiming ineligible subject matter. [] The patents claim improvements on procedures for reducing signal interference when a mobile device connects to a cellular network. Samsung had argued that the patents claim nothing more than mathematical formulas, making them unpatentable under Section 101 of the Patent Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in its Alice decision…Orrick disagreed. He pointed to a decision last month from U.S. District Judge Sue Robinson of Delaware that characterized similar patent claims as ‘specific solutions to improve mobile device functionality.'”

A Compelling Invention Story May Support Patent-Eligibility | JDSUPRASpec support can help with Alice analysis: “the Patent Office is training examiners to review specifications for language supporting patent-eligibility of the claims: “An indication that a claim is directed to an improvement in computer-related technology may include – (1) a teaching in the specification about how the claimed invention improves a computer.””

FairWarning or Fair Weather for Patentees? | LEXOLOGY and FINNEGANClever insights/warnings on specification drafting in the full article: “FairWarning highlights risks that a patent’s specification may pose in a patent-eligibility analysis. In FairWarning, the patent specification’s description of the field of invention was used to help formulate the abstract idea embodied by the claims. Further, the specification’s acknowledgement that preexisting technologies accomplished a similar task helped establish that the claims did not represent anything substantially more than the abstract idea.”

Evolving Post-Alice Law on Patent Eligibility | BLOG.IPFrom the Synopsis case: “In its inventive concept inquiry, the Federal Circuit explained that the search for a § 101 inventive concept is distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty, dismissing the patent owner’s argument that the challenged claims were not shown to have been anticipated by, or obvious over, the prior art and therefore did not employ conventional computer technology. The Court noted that even a claim directed to a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. Thus, these claims were also found to be patent ineligible under Alice.”