August 27, 2019
Authored and Edited by Marcus A.R. Childress; Sydney R. Kestle; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In MyMail, Ltd., v. ooVoo, LLC IAC Search & Media, Inc., Nos. 2018-1758, 2018-1759 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2019), the Court vacated and remanded a determination regarding patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the district court failed to first resolve the parties’ claim construction dispute.
After successfully transferring venue from the Eastern District of Texas, the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that the MyMail patents were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The parties disputed the proper construction of the term “toolbar.” But the court declined to construe the term, and it held the claims were directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit held the district court erred by failing to first resolve the claim construction dispute. The Court reiterated that eligibility may be determined on a Rule 12(c) motion only when there are no factual allegations that, when taken as true, prevent resolving the eligibility questions as a matter of law. And here, because the parties submitted a claim construction dispute, the district court had an obligation to either adopt the non-moving party’s construction or resolve the dispute to the extent necessary to conduct the § 101 analysis.
Judge Lourie dissented and would have found the patents ineligible under § 101. For the claim construction issue, Judge Lourie stated that the specification was enough to evaluate the claims and determine they are directed to an unpatentable abstract idea.
Copyright © 2019 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.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
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.