Replies to post #431679 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[Monterey2000]

My3sons87...it is in the Federal Circuit Court of North Carolina. The filings can be accessed from the following link. See filing# 13 and filing# 14.
North_Carolina_Eastern_District_Court 5--23-cv-00493

From Filing# 14...

I. INTRODUCTION 
 When patent claims merely cover an abstract idea without any inventive concept, they are  
 invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The ’054 patent and ’933 patent both cover the abstract idea of 
 wirelessly transferring data, which is unpatentable under § 101. Stripped of their superfluous 
 verbiage, the independent claims of both patents seek to monopolize the abstract idea of  
 wirelessly transferring data. Using results-based functional language, the claims recite the  
 logical sequence of steps necessary to transfer data wirelessly, i.e., selecting data to transfer, 
 finding and selecting a recipient, establishing a wireless connection to the recipient, and 
 transferring the data. Wirelessly transferring data is a quintessential abstract idea and has been a  
 longstanding practice for centuries. Since the 1890’s ships at sea have relied on wirelessly  
 transferring data via radios to replace carrier pigeons and flags for communication. 
  
 Apart from the requirements to use certain preexisting wireless data transfer protocols  
 (i.e., Bluetooth and WiFi) and generic components (i.e., processors and circuitry), the claims of  
 the ’054 and ’933 patents cover nothing more than the same abstract idea embodied in radio  
 transmissions for more than a hundred years. And the inclusion of conventional wireless data transfer 
 protocols and generic components cannot transform these results-based functional claims into  
 patent-eligible subject matter.  
  
 The Federal Circuit repeatedly holds that claims drawn to wirelessly transferring data  
 recite nothing more than an abstract idea. And when those claims lack an inventive concept—as  
 with the claims here—those claims are held invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Court and 
 parties should not bear the needless waste of time and resources litigating these invalid patents. 
  
 Therefore, because the patents claim unpatentable subject matter, they should be held invalid and  
 dismissed with prejudice.