March 6, 2018
Authored and Edited by Ruohan (Jack) Li; Kevin D. Rodkey; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., No. 2017-1452 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 14, 2018), the Federal Circuit reversed-in-part and vacated-in-part the district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), remanding to allow the plaintiff to file an amended complaint that pleads factual disputes relating to the § 101 analysis.
Aatrix sued Green Shades for infringement of two patents directed to systems and methods for designing, creating, and importing data into a viewable form on a computer. Green Shades moved to dismiss under Federal Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the asserted claims were not patent ineligible under § 101. The district court granted Green Shades’ motion. Aatrix then moved to modify and vacate the judgment, for reconsideration, and to file an amended complaint that included allegations and evidence relating to the § 101 challenge. The district court denied Aatrix’s motion. Aatrix appealed.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit sided with Aatrix. The majority explained that patent eligibility can be determined on a motion to dismiss “only when there are no factual allegations that, taken as true, prevent resolving the eligibility question as a matter of law.” The majority then found that Aatrix’s proposed amended complaint, if accepted as true, could establish that the asserted claims contain an inventive concept. Accordingly, the Court vacated the district court’s dismissal, reversed the denial of Aatrix’s motion to file an amended complaint, and remanded for further proceedings.
Judge Reyna concurred-in-part and dissented-in-part with decision to vacate. He concurred with the decision to vacate and remand because the district court erred in its conclusion that the asserted patents we ineligible under § 101 because they lacked a “tangible embodiment.” He disagreed, however, regarding the role of factual evidence in a § 101 determination, because the court’s precedent states that § 101 is a legal question that can be decided on a motion to dismiss.
Want to learn more? Click here and here for additional commentary about this case from Finnegan’s “Last Month at the Federal Circuit” podcast series.
Copyright © 2018 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.
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
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.