Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Yes it is a treasure trove that shows that the IPR filed against VPLM had no merit. Thank you for reminding us of the VPLM wins at PTAB
Unlike the U.S., the EU is not antagonistic to patent owners, and more importantly they have had enough of the bullying tactics of Silicon Valley.
Alice aside, our chances for enforcement across the pond are significantly better.
Wrong on ALL counts
International courts are FAR friendlier to owners of IP
Exactly....she was overturned by the Federal Circuit....I think the same will happen with this Alice ruling
I believe in the patents
I believe that VPLM wins the Alice appeal that will undoubtedly follow.
It's as simple as that.
next?
why are you deliberately mis-stating what I clearly said in my post? I said NOTHING about her qualifications.....but people who are qualified make mistakes.
You just made one...
I don't discredit the Judge...I discredit her ruling, which is not a correct understanding of the patent claims
Wait....Voip Pal will appeal. You will see HARD EVIDENCE.
Koh got it wrong, and it will be reversed...regrettably for shareholders, it means a wait.
What will likely happen, has happened. Emil told "Dr. Gil" to make a better offer, that looks after ALL the shareholders....that is WHAT HAPPENED
so wrong....read the claims...it is all about how the routing is accomplished across different types of networks....Alice battle is not over
Primary being the patents don't provide any details on how the routing is even processed.
I don't discredit the Judge...I discredit her ruling, which is not a correct understanding of the patent claims
Europe is much friendlier to patent owners, and does not put them through this meat grinder to enforce their RIGHTS
WHO is bidding for over 1,000,000 shares?
I know what she did
I also know what's in the patents.
We can win on appeal
your analogy is not even remotely close....read the patents.
Actually, Voip Pal doesn't need to modify the details of the inventions. They have articulated the details quite well in the patents. Regrettably, the Alice motions are subjective in terms of being adjudicated, as there are not clear guidelines.
Recent precedent from 2018 suggest that Alice motions should not even be heard until after a trial so that the concrete aspects of the patents can be argued before a jury. Making judicial exceptions prior to the court case being heard is gaining more and more opposition.
https://www.patentdocs.org/2018/07/guest-post-will-alice-become-the-new-markman.html
"In Berkheimer, the validity of a patent ultimately hinged upon whether a particular feature of the claimed invention could be considered inventive. According to the panel, conventionality is determined by what others skilled in the art were doing at the time the invention was made, i.e., a question of fact. Berkheimer argued that summary judgment was not appropriate because genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether the claimed invention was well-understood, routine, and conventional, a question for which HP had offered no evidence. The Court distinguished between what is known and what is "well-understood, routine and conventional." Judge Moore writes: "Whether a particular technology is well-understood, routine, and conventional goes beyond what was simply known in the prior art. The mere fact that something is disclosed in a piece of prior art, for example, does not mean it was well-understood, routine, and conventional."
Aatrix, decided February 14, 2018, doubled down on the Berkheimer decision, holding that a factual inquiry had to be performed to establish whether a step was genuinely unconventional. While the case was remanded during the pleadings phase of Aatrix (as opposed to during a summary judgment as in Berkheimer) the reasoning underlying the decision was essentially the same. During pleadings before the District Court, Aatrix attempted to file an amended complaint that it claimed contained information relevant for determining the eligibility of the disputed invention. The District Court denied the motion to amend. The CAFC ruled that it was necessary for courts to consider any evidence relevant to determining the eligibility of a patent, and therefore, such amendments had to be permitted. In Aatrix, the District Court also ruled that the patents in dispute were invalid before claim construction could be performed. The CAFC disagreed: "If there are claim construction disputes at the 12(b)(6) stage . . . either the court must proceed by adopting the non-moving party's constructions . . . or the court must resolve the disputes to whatever extent is needed to conduct the § 101 analysis, which may well be less than a full, formal claim construction."
This is far from "over"
I agree - the technical issues are beyond her experience. This case will now go up a level and get decided by people with more technical knowledge. Note: the PTAB looked at these patents over, under, sideways and down, and found no deficiencies. I'm still optimistic.
I took the test, and answered every single question as if I were investing in a T Bill. It still said to "be careful" - it's worthless
This is far from over
United States: The Federal Circuit's Data Engine Ruling: The Significance Of The Alice Step One Analysis
Last Updated: October 18 2018
Article by Joseph Saphia and Bonnie L. Gaudette
Haug Partners
Your LinkedIn
Connections at Firm
LinkedIn Twitter Facebook
On October 9, 2018, the Federal Circuit added to its growing collection of favorable Alice step one rulings1 by reversing portions of a decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware concerning an invention aimed to streamline the technology of electronic spreadsheets—a technology that has been around for twenty-five years. See Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2017-1135, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 28412 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2018). The Federal Circuit's decision may be viewed as a not-so-gentle reminder to patent applicants and drafters alike to continue to draft software patent claims narrowly and with specificity if they wish to survive patent eligibility challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Alice step one.
The court commenced its opinion with a robust overview of Data Engine's patents-at-issue: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,590,259; 5,784,545; and 6,282,551 (the "Tab Patents") and U.S. Patent No. 5,303,146 (the "'146 Patent"). See Data Engine, at *2-12. The Tab Patents are entitled "System and Methods for Improved Spreadsheet Interface With User-Familiar Objects." Id. at *1-2. In its detailed review of the Tab Patents, the court noted that they claim "systems and methods for making complex electronic spreadsheets more accessible by providing familiar, user-friendly interface objects—specifically, notebook tabs—to navigate through spreadsheets while circumventing the arduous process of searching for, memorizing, and entering complex commands." Id. at *2. In essence, the Tab Patents aim to overcome some of the challenges users encountered when navigating electronic spreadsheets due to complex menu systems that "diminished the utility and ease of use of this technology." Id. at *3. In an attempt to offer a solution to the challenges of prior art multipage electronic spreadsheets, the Tab Patents are directed to "implementing a notebook-tabbed interface, which allows users to easily navigate through three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets" and "conveniently flip through several pages of notebook to rapidly locate information of interest." Id. at *4-5. The '146 Patent is entitled, "System and Methods for Improved Scenario Management in an Electronic Spreadsheet" and is directed to tools that permit "electronic spreadsheet users to track their changes" automatically, as opposed to manually, when testing a multitude of modeling scenarios. Id. at *10-11.
Data Engine sought this appeal following the trial court's decision granting Google's motion for judgment on the pleadings. In that motion, Google argued that both the Tab Patents and the '146 patent are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Data Engine, at *12. The trial court held that representative claims of the Tab Patents are directed to the abstract ideas of "using notebook-type tabs to label and organize spreadsheets . . . that humans have commonly performed entirely in their minds, with the aid of columnar pads and writing instruments." Id. The trial court also held that the '146 patent claims are directed to the abstract ideas of "collecting spreadsheet data, recognizing changes to spreadsheet data, and storing information about the changes." Id. at *13. Further, none of the patent claims, in the trial court's view, provided the requisite inventive concept to confer patent eligibility. Id.
Reviewing the decision from the trial court de novo, pursuant to Third Circuit law, the Federal Circuit applied the two-step Alice framework2. Id. at *13. Referring to Alice step one, the court stated, "'[w]e must first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept'" as "'[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.'" Id. at *14 (quoting Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)). The court noted that the inquiry may end at Alice step one should a court determine that "the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept." Id. at *14. If, however, the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the § 101 patent eligibility analysis requires evaluation under Alice step two to consider the "'elements of each claim both individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.'" Id. at *14-15 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355).
The court first addressed the Tab Patents, and with the exception of one claim, found that the Tab Patents are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under Alice step one. Data Engine, at *15. The court repeatedly made note of the specificity found throughout the representative claim of the Tab Patents. Id. at *15-18. Specifically, the court found that the claim is directed to a "specific method for navigating through three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets" and provided a "specific solution to then-existing technological problems in computers and prior art electronic spreadsheets." Id. at *15. By alleviating the need to navigate burdensome features, the invention solved a "known technological problem in computers in a particular way." Id. at *16. The court also noted that the invention "for the first time" provided "rapid access to and processing of information in different spreadsheets" which was "applauded by the industry." Id. at *16-17. Of particular note, the court considered the prosecution history as relevant evidence in its de novo review, relying on several articles that touted the advantages of Data Engine's notebook tabs, which the trial court declined to consider. Id. at *17.
In finding the claims patent eligible, the court analogized the specificity of the Tab Patents' representative claim with the patent-eligible claims in Core Wireless. In that case, the court found the subject claims "directed to an improved display interface that allowed users to more quickly access stored data and programs in small-screen electronics, thereby improving the efficient functioning of the computer." Id. at *18 (citing Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Like the claims in Core Wireless, the representative claim of the Tab Patents recites a "'specific' and 'particular' manner of navigating a three-dimensional spreadsheet that improves the efficient functioning of computers." Id. at *19-20 (quoting Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1362-63). The court also relied on its own precedent in Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 Fed. Appx. 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Id. at *20. In Trading Technologies, the court agreed with the trial court's finding that the claims-at-issue "require[d] a specific, structured graphical user interface paired with a prescribed functionality directly related to the graphical user interface's structure that is addressed to and resolves a specifically identified problem in the prior state of the art." Id. at *20-21.
Maintaining its focus on the requirement for specific patent claims, the court was not persuaded by Google's reliance on prior cases in which the court held that claims directed to methods of organizing and presenting information are abstract. Id. at *21 (rejecting Google's reliance on Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). The court distinguished the representative claim of the Tab Patents from the claims-at-issue in Affinity Labs and Intellectual Ventures I noting that the latter claims were "'entirely functional in nature'" and failed to "recite any specific structure or improvement of computer functionality sufficient to render the claims not abstract." Id. at *21-22 (quoting Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1258 and citing Intellectual Ventures I, 850 F.3d at 1328-29).
Turning its focus to the '146 Patent, the court agreed with the trial court's finding that the representative claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under Alice step one because they are directed to the abstract idea of "collecting spreadsheet data, recognizing changes to spreadsheet data, and storing information about the changes." Data Engine, at *28. Akin to the claims-at-issue in Content Extraction, which were directed to methods of extracting data from hard-copy documents using an automated scanner and then recognizing information from the extracted data and storing it, the court found the representative claims of the '146 Patent to be similarly abstract, with "no material difference." Id. at *28-29. The court concluded that the '146 Patent claims are "directed to the abstract idea of collecting, recognizing, and storing the recognized data in memory." Id. at *29 (citing Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Proceeding to Alice step two, the court failed to find an inventive concept in the representative claims of the '146 Patent because the claims simply recite the "generic steps of creating a base version of a spreadsheet, creating a new version of the spreadsheet, and determining changes made to the original version." Id. at *29. Quoting Alice, the court found that "[t]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id. at *29-30 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358).
The Federal Circuit's decision in Data Engine is salient for two reasons. First, the decision illustrates a thorough application of the Alice two-step framework. With significant focus on Alice step one, the court emphasized the role of the patent specification, written description, claims and prosecution history in determining patentability. Second, and most importantly for patentees and drafters, Data Engine exemplifies the need to narrowly draft patent claims with specificity, and direct those claims to notable improvements over technological problems present in the prior art. Narrowly drawn claims directed to technological improvements will likely survive patent-ineligible subject matter challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and examination under the Alice two-step analysis.
Footnotes
1 See, e.g., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("ecause the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under step one of the Alice analysis, we do not need to proceed to step two of that analysis"). See also, McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
2 See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
This isn't over....
United States: Federal Circuit Makes It More Difficult To Invalidate Patents Under Alice
Last Updated: May 1 2018
Article by Cislo & Thomas LLP
Cislo & Thomas LLP
LinkedIn Twitter Facebook
Takeaway: Any clarity that may have developed since 2014 for Section 101 challenges now seems to have faded away. The recent Federal Circuit ruling determining that Section 101 challenges may involve issues of fact and may not be suitable for dispositive motions complicates the way we look at these issues.
As many patent attorneys and agents know, the landscape of business methods and software patent eligibility has changed since the 2014 ruling of Alice v. CLS Bank. Alice has made it significantly more difficult to patent software and business methods, but now the Federal Circuit made a ruling that will slow down the process of invalidating patents under Section 101.
The Federal Circuit found that a finding of patent eligibility under Section 101 and the Alice ruling involve "factual issues." This means that lower district courts will have a more difficult time resolving Section 101 cases at the summary judgment stage because these factual issues are something that require a jury to decide.
This ruling may drastically change how we look at Section 101 challenges because we have yet to see how a jury will decide such an issue. Over the past four years since the Alice ruling, judges, attorneys, and clients have all been trying to figure out the bounds of Section 101 for business methods and software inventions. With this ruling, it is as if the slate has been wiped clean and we will have to analyze the issues in a different light because the decision may come down to the jury to decide as opposed to the judge.
absolute nonsense.
And the EU is none too happy about Silicon Valley's bullying tactics...
Alice is not VPLM's fault. 101 should have been addressed in IPR . 101 is a mess and everyone in patent law knows it. sooner or later, 101 will have to have a more clearly defined narrative, or else every software patent is at risk. Europe o the other hand, defines value completely differently.
This is not over.
100% agree
The only scamming here is by a patent system that discourages invention. The AIA has been disastrous for patents in the US. Fortunately, Europe has different ideas.
Exactly correct.
I believe that she is quite aware of the Supreme Courts views on Judicial Exception.
I'm no lawyer, but if Judge Koh does not support Iancu and the Supreme Courts leanings, I think VPLM still wins on appeal.....
Besides, just on the merits of our patents, technology and the FACT that we built the nodes, and tested them, and that the PTAB could have taken up 101, in IPR...
the idea that RBR is "abstract" is just silly....
Ensuring the High Quality of Decisions
The USPTO has taken a number of actions to issue high timely decisions and enhance decisional quality. The PTAB administers weekly legal training to ensure judges, patent attorneys, law clerks, and paralegals are knowledgeable on the latest legal and policy developments. Additionally, the PTAB participated in an intra-agency working group to develop the newly-released guidance for determining subject matter eligibility under § 101 and conducted extensive training on the application of this guidance to ensure its consistent application.
From Iancu's testimony
You know what is really "STRANGE"?
How the American patent system has been tilted to favor infringers, who used patents to keep competition down. They hoisted themselves up to the mountain top by using intellectual property, and now they are trying to burn the ladders.
Bu the Supreme Court seems to think that Judicial Exception should be eliminated in favor of obeying the Constitution- which would favor patent owners.
I read Judge Kavanuagh's opinion in January of this year, which was UNANIMOUSLY supported by the rest of the SCOTUS. He is against Judicial exception - meaning that rulings like Alice prior to fact finding trials are not appropriate. Besides, Alice is so vague as to be completely subjective, and that is not good Constitutional Law
Based on Kavanaugh's recent opinion that was supported by all of the Supreme Court Judges, there appears to be a shift re: Alice that is favorable to patent owners.
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/01/11/new-court-fix-alice-patent-eligibility-judicial-exceptions-101/id=104975/
n a unanimous Supreme Court decision dated January 8, Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored an opinion applying a statutory construction principle to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) that may foreshadow how the new Court, applying the same principle, will dramatically reshape how federal courts must approach patent eligible subject matter challenges by eliminating the judicial exceptions—abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomenon—and thus moot the debate that has followed (and preceded) the Court’s Alice decision.
No Judicial Exceptions
In Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., Case No. 17-1272, the Court considered the Circuit split over whether the “wholly groundless” exception to an FAA provision requiring the arbitrator to decide issues the parties had agreed to arbitrate could be relied on to permit a district court to determine in the first instance whether a particular dispute was arbitrable, notwithstanding that the parties had agreed arbitrability questions should be decided by the arbitrator. The Court unanimously held that the exception does not apply. The reason is simple. As Justice Kavanaugh explained, acknowledging that the FAA had been adopted by Congress and signed by the President: “The short answer is that the Act contains no [such] exception, and we may not engraft our own exceptions onto the statutory text.” Henry Schein, slip op. at 7. Hammering home this rather unambiguous principle, Justice Kavanagh noted: “Again, we may not rewrite the statute simply to accommodate [a recognized] policy concern.” Id. at 8.
That noise you just heard was dozens of decades of jurisprudence applying the well-known three judicial exceptions to patent eligible subject matter—abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomenon—which do not appear in the Patent Act, flying right out the window. The little pop was the judicially created obviousness type double patenting defense following.
On the contrary, VPLM has WON every legal hurdle thus far.....
You are WRONG
YEP this TURD is not going to win anything
It's simple and has been answered MANY times before.
Patent litigation is a game of chicken...it's cheaper for infringers to infringe, then use drawn out pointless negotiations and then use their counsel to try to wear down patent holders than it is to license or settle.
However, with each win, Voip Pal gets STRONGER and closer to trial, and the cost of settling becomes more attractive of an option to the defendant, than risking what might happen in court...
Right now, Apple and others are using this terrible patent system to their advantage by the IPR/PTAB/Motions etc.....But their stalling and impediments won't last forever.
There, it's been answered......AGAIN
nice try.....
They have been masterful in assembling a team that put together the response to Alice.....Apple should realize it has underestimated Voip Pal's patents and its resolve.
Hey BiCell - how do you think a small company raises money to fight Silicon Valley when they are infringing on your patents....? The pure "BS"...is trashing VPLM for protecting the assets that belong to it...
that's why we're called SHARE HOLDERS
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”
The Alice response is BRILLIANT.
Major KUDOS to the entire VPLM team.