Tag: software patents
-
Constellation Designs v. LG: Federal Circuit Draws Section 101 Line Between Optimization Claims and Specific Signal Constellations
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., No. 24-1822 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 31, 2026), draws an unusually clear line under 35 U.S.C. § 101 between claiming a technological objective and claiming a particular technological implementation. The court held claims broadly covering signal constellations “optimized” for improved capacity patent ineligible, while…
-
TrackTime v. Amazon.com: Federal Circuit Requires Contextual § 112(f) Analysis for Software Claim Terms
The Federal Circuit’s decision in TrackTime, LLC v. Amazon.com Services LLC, Case No. 2024-1102 (Fed. Cir. July 2, 2026), clarifies how courts must determine whether software claim language invokes means-plus-function treatment under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), particularly when a claim recites “executable program code” configured to perform specified operations. The court vacated a judgment that…
-
Genuine Enabling Tech. v. Sony: Means-Plus-Function Claims Demand Full Structural Accounting
On February 19, 2026, the Federal Circuit issued a significant decision in Genuine Enabling Technology LLC v. Sony Group Corporation, No. 2024-1686, affirming summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Sony. At first glance, the case involves familiar territory: PlayStation controllers, Bluetooth modules, and an aging patent directed to combining data streams. But the real…
-
GoTV v. Netflix: Federal Circuit Holds Device-Tailored Content Claims Ineligible Under Section 101
On February 9, 2026, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., reversing a jury verdict and holding that three related GoTV patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The panel, in an opinion by Judge Taranto, concluded that the asserted claims were directed to the abstract idea of…
-
US Patent No. 7,679,637 v. Google: Federal Circuit Rejects Functional Claims Under Section 101
On January 22, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a patent infringement complaint against Google at the pleading stage, holding that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,679,637 are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The decision reinforces a familiar theme in modern eligibility jurisprudence: claims drafted at a high level of…
-
Fintiv v. PayPal: Payment Handler Terms Indefinite Under § 112(f)
In Fintiv, Inc. v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., No. 23-2312 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Western District of Texas’s ruling that the asserted patent claims were invalid as indefinite. The decision underscores the court’s continued enforcement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 for software-related terms that fail to recite sufficient…
-
Broadband iTV v. Amazon: UI Claims Fail Section 101
In its recent decision Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed a summary judgment ruling that all asserted claims from five patents were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The opinion, authored by Judge Reyna, offers a comprehensive application of the Alice two-step framework and reiterates that automation…