{"id":1844,"date":"2017-12-08T12:24:17","date_gmt":"2017-12-08T17:24:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1844"},"modified":"2017-12-09T09:55:44","modified_gmt":"2017-12-09T14:55:44","slug":"alice-changed-the-law-patent-plaintiff-should-have-reassessed-its-claim","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1844","title":{"rendered":"Alice Changed the Law; Patent Plaintiff Should have Reassessed its Claim"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.<\/a>, [2016-2442] (December 8, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s award of fees on the grounds that following the Alice decision, patent owner\u2019s claims were objectively\u00a0without merit.<\/p>\n

The district court awarded BBB its\u00a0attorneys’ fees beginning from the date of the Alice decision,\u00a0including fees incurred during the \u00a7 101 appeal.\u00a0The district court determined that the case was exceptional
\nbased solely on the weakness of IH\u2019s post-Alice<\/em>\u00a0patent-eligibility arguments and the need to deter future\u00a0\u201cwasteful litigation\u201d on similarly weak arguments.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit, reviewing for abuse of discretion,\u00a0 found that the district court acted within the scope of its discretion\u00a0in finding the case to be exceptional based on the\u00a0weakness of IH\u2019s \u00a7 101 arguments and the need to deter\u00a0similarly weak arguments in the future.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit said that\u00a0under Alice<\/em>, the claims of the patent were manifestly
\ndirected to an abstract idea, which the district court\u00a0accurately described as \u201clocal processing of payments for\u00a0remotely purchased goods.\u201d\u00a0 The
\nidea that a customer may pay for items ordered from a\u00a0remote seller at a third-party\u2019s local establishment is the\u00a0type of fundamental business practice that, when implemented\u00a0using generic computer technology, is not patent eligible\u00a0under Alice<\/em>.\u00a0The Federal Circuit continued noting that under Alice\u2019s second step, the only components disclosed
\nin the specification for implementing the asserted\u00a0method claims are unambiguously described as \u201cconventional.\u201d\u00a0These components do\u00a0not supply an inventive concept.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit held that\u00a0Alice<\/em> was a significant change in
\nthe law as applied to the facts of this particular case, noting that prior to Alice<\/em>, the state of the law for computer implemented\u00a0business transaction inventions was less\u00a0than clear.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0While as a general matter
\nwas and is sometimes difficult to analyze patent\u00a0eligibility under the framework prescribed by the Supreme Court in Mayo<\/em>, the Federal Circuit said there was no uncertainty or difficulty\u00a0in applying the principles set out in Alice to reach the\u00a0conclusion that the \u2019582 patent\u2019s claims are ineligible. The Federal Circuit said that it was IH\u2019s responsibility to reassess its case in view\u00a0of new controlling law.<\/p>\n

Because the district court did not abuse its discretion
\nin awarding attorney fees under \u00a7 285, the district court\u2019s
\ndecision was affirmed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., [2016-2442] (December 8, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s award of fees on the grounds that following the Alice decision, patent owner\u2019s claims were objectively\u00a0without merit. The district … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15,44],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1844","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-15","category-attorneys-fees"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1844","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1844"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1844\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1846,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1844\/revisions\/1846"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1844"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1844"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1844"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}