Alice in Patentland

Alice in Patentland: Cryptopeak Solutions, LLC v. Multiple Defendants

  Plaintiff Cryptopeak Solutions Defendant Multiple Defendants Court Eastern District Of Texas Marshall Division Judge Judge Roy S. Payne Motion Motion to Dismiss Decision DENIED Decision Date September 9, 2016 Background: CryptoPeak Solutions LLC’s U.S. Patent No. 6,202,150 titled “Auto-Escrowable and Auto-Certifiable Cryptosystems” is directed to an algorithm for public-key cryptography that generates a public

Alice in PatentlandLatest from the Greatest

Alice in Patentland: Zimmers v. Eaton Corp.

Plaintiff Steven L. Zimmers Defendant Eaton Corporation Case 2:2015cv02398 Court Southern District of Ohio Judge Judge Algenon L. Marbley Motion Defendants’ Motion for Judgement Decision GRANTED Decision Date August 2, 2016 Background – Eaton Corp. challenged Zimmers’ U.S. Patent No. 9,015,256 stating that its claims simply recite a well-known idea of sending alert notifications to multiple

Alice in Patentland

Alice in Patentland: Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft

Plaintiff Enfish, LLC Defendant Microsoft Corp. Case 2:12-cv-07360 Judge Todd M. Hughes (United States Circuit Judge) Decision Date May 12, 2016 Background – Enfish received U.S. Patent 6,151,604 and U.S. Patent 6,163,775 in late 2000. Enfish sued Microsoft for infringement of these patents related to a “self-referential” database. On summary judgment, the district court found all

Alice in Patentland

Alice in Patentland: Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corporation

Plaintiff Visual Memory LLC Defendant NVIDIA Corporation Case 15-789-RGA Court District of Delaware Judge Richard G. Andrews (United States District Judge) Motion Motion to Dismiss Decision GRANTED Decision Date May 27, 2016 Background – Visual Memory LLC filed a Patent Infringement lawsuit against NVIDIA Corporation on September 8, 2015. NVIDIA challenged Visual Memory LLC’s U.S. Patent

Alice in PatentlandLaws & Processes

Alice in Patentland: Device Enhancement v. Amazon

Plaintiff Device Enhancement, LLC Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. Case 15-762-SLR Court District of Delaware Judge Sue L. Robinson (United States District Judge) Motion Motion to Dismiss Decision GRANTED Decision Date May 17, 2016 Background – Amazon challenged Device Enhancement LLC’s U.S. Patent No. 7,747,683 stating that its claims simply recite a well-known idea of segmenting and formatting

Alice in PatentlandLaws & Processes

Alice in Patentland: Affinity v. Netflix

Plaintiff Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC Defendant Netflix, Inc. Case 1:15-cv-849-RP Court Western District of Texas Austin Division Judge Robert Pitman (United States District Judge) Motion Motion to Dismiss Decision DENIED Decision Date May 6, 2016 Background – Netflix challenged Affinity Labs’ U.S. Patent No. 9,094,802 stating that its claims simply recite a well-known idea of

Alice in PatentlandLaws & Processes

Alice in Patentland: Art+Com v. Google

Plaintiff Art+Com Innovationpool Gmbh Defendant Google Inc. Case 14-217-RGA Court District Of Delaware Judge Richard G. Andrews (United States District Judge) Motion Motion for Summary Judgement Decision DENIED Decision Date April 28, 2016 Background – Google challenged Art+Com Innovationpool’s U.S. Patent No. RE44,550 stating that claim 1, the only independent claim, is directed at patent-ineligible subject

Alice in PatentlandLaws & Processes

Alice in Patentland: Prologue

Alice in Patentland is a series of web articles where we analyze the most impactful Alice motions. This is the Prologue to this series and will explain who is Alice and why is she so important in Patentland. Background Alice Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Alice”) had four patents (US 5,970,479, US 6,912,510, US 7,149,720, and