{"id":2090,"date":"2018-01-01T08:58:39","date_gmt":"2018-01-01T13:58:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2090"},"modified":"2018-07-03T22:26:42","modified_gmt":"2018-07-04T02:26:42","slug":"concrete-allegations-that-claim-elements-are-not-well-understood-routine-or-conventional-prevents-dismissal-under-rule-12b6","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2090","title":{"rendered":"Concrete Allegations that\u00a0Claim Elements are Not\u00a0Well-Understood, Routine, or Conventional Prevents Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In <a href=\"http:\/\/www.cafc.uscourts.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/opinions-orders\/17-1452.Order.5-25-2018.1.pdf\">Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.<\/a>, [2017-1452] (June 1, 2018), the Federal Circuit denied rehearing and rehearing en banc of the panel decision.\u00a0 Judge Moore, concurring, explained that\u00a0Aatrix stands for the unremarkable\u00a0proposition that whether a claim element or combination\u00a0of elements would have been well-understood, routine,\u00a0and conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field\u00a0at a particular point in time is a question of fact.\u00a0\u00a0As this is a factual question, the normal procedural\u00a0standards for fact questions must apply, including the\u00a0rules in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applicable to\u00a0motions to dismiss or for summary judgment and the\u00a0standards in the Federal Rules of Evidence for admissions\u00a0and judicial notice.<\/p>\n<p>Turning to the case at hand, Judge Moore noted that\u00a0when patent eligibility is challenged in a motion to dismiss\u00a0for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6),<br \/>\nthe Court must apply the well-settled Rule 12(b)(6) standard\u00a0which is consistently applied in every area of law:\u00a0A\u00a0motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim must be<br \/>\ndenied if \u201cin the light most favorable to the plaintiff and\u00a0with every doubt resolved in the pleader\u2019s favor\u2014but\u00a0disregarding mere conclusory statements\u2014the complaint\u00a0states any legally cognizable claim for relief.\u201d\u00a0 Judge Moore noted that the second amended<br \/>\ncomplaint in Aatrix included \u201cconcrete allegations . . . that\u00a0individual elements and the claimed combination are not\u00a0well-understood, routine, or conventional activity\u201d and that nothing in the limited record at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage refuted these\u00a0allegations, so there was no legal basis to affirm the\u00a0dismissal of the complaint.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., [2017-1452] (June 1, 2018), the Federal Circuit denied rehearing and rehearing en banc of the panel decision.\u00a0 Judge Moore, concurring, explained that\u00a0Aatrix stands for the unremarkable\u00a0proposition that whether a claim element &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2090\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/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],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2090","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-15"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2090","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=2090"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2090\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2092,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2090\/revisions\/2092"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2090"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2090"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2090"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}