April 24, 2020
Authored and Edited by Kathryn R. Judson; Caitlin E. O'Connell; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., No. 2019-1149 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 17, 2020), the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s determination that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,941,207 were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The ’207 patent claims are directed to techniques for monitoring electrical activity in the heart to detect the presence of atrial fibrillation. At step one of the Alice test, the district court concluded that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of distinguishing atrial fibrillation by focusing on the variability of the irregular heartbeat. At step two of the Alice test, the district court recognized that the claimed invention “may well improve the field of cardiac telemetry,” but that CardioNet had failed to “identify improvements to any particularized technology.” Thus, the district court found the ’207 patent claims ineligible under § 101 and granted InfoBionic’s motion to dismiss.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit found that the claims of the ’207 patent were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather were directed to a patent-eligible improvement to cardiac monitoring technology. The Court explained that the district court erred in oversimplifying the claims and concluding that they were “directed to automating known techniques.” The Court held that the claims were instead directed to specific methods for improving cardiac monitoring technology. The Court also clarified that the Alice step one inquiry can be resolved at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage without assessing the state of the art because it presents a legal question that can be determined without looking outside the intrinsic evidence.
Judge Dyk dissented-in-part, arguing that the majority improperly included “confusing dicta” on the role of extrinsic evidence in the patent-eligibility analysis but agreed that the claims were patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Copyright © 2020 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Hybrid Conference
2024 California Intellectual Property Law Institute
October 21-22,2024
San Francisco
Conference
2024 Licensing Executives Society USA – Canada Annual Meeting
October 20-23, 2024
New Orleans
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.