直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Four Network Service Provider Patents Found Patent-Eligible Under § 101

November 02, 2016

Authored and Edited by Paula E. Miller; Kevin D. Rodkey; Elizabeth D. Ferrill

In Amdoc (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., No. 15-1180 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2016), a split panel of the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s finding that four patents directed to solving accounting and billing problems faced by network service providers were directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court decision and provided additional guidance for applying the two-step patent-eligibility test in Alice. The majority examined the claims in light of the Court’s prior decisions to determine whether the claims at issue are similar to those previously found ineligible. The Court explained that the claims at issue, even if they are directed to an abstract idea, “contain[] a sufficient ‘inventive concept’” to render them patent-eligible. The Court relied on the claims constructions of certain terms that required a specific distributed architecture and network devices “working together in a distributed manner.” The Court recognized that, although the claims may recite generic components, those components work “in an unconventional distributed fashion to solve a particular technological problem.”

Judge Reyna dissented.  In his view, the majority avoided identifying the abstract idea under the first step of the Alice test and incorrectly imported limitations from the specification into the claims. Although Judge Reyna acknowledged that the “network monitoring system disclosed [in the specification] is eligible for patenting,” he thought the claims should not be patent-eligible because they are not directed to any specific structure.

Tags

35 U.S.C. § 101

Contacts

Kevin D. Rodkey
Partner
Atlanta, GA
+1 404 653 6484
Email
Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2016 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.

Related Insights

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 3, 2026

Paris

Conference

2026 AIPLA Annual Meeting

October 29-31, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Conference

ChIPs Global Summit 2026

October 21-23, 2026

Los Angeles

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – California

October 19-20, 2026

San Francisco

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – New York

September 28-29, 2026

New York

Conference

2026 IPO Annual Meeting

September 27-29, 2026

Toronto

Conference

IAM Live: SEP Summit Global 2026

September 9-10, 2026

London

Conference

Singapore IP Week 2026

August 26-27, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP