{"id":2497,"date":"2019-08-16T10:51:36","date_gmt":"2019-08-16T14:51:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2497"},"modified":"2019-08-17T23:54:21","modified_gmt":"2019-08-18T03:54:21","slug":"patent-eligibility-can-be-determined-on-the-pleadings-provide-claim-construction-is-not-at-issue","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2497","title":{"rendered":"Patent Eligibility Can be Determined on the Pleadings, Provide Claim Construction is Not at Issue"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In Mymail, Ltd. v. Oovoo, LLC<\/a>, [2018-1758, 2018-1759] (August 16, 2019), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded judgment on the pleadings, the district court erred by declining to resolve the parties\u2019 claim construction dispute before adjudging patent eligibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The district court found U.S. Patent Nos. 8,275,863 and 9,021,070 were directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 101. The district court concluded that the MyMail patent claims are directed to an abstract idea because they \u201cfall within the category of gathering and processing information\u201d and \u201crecite a process comprised of transmitting data, analyzing data, and generating a response to transmitted data.\u201d At Alice step two, the district court concluded that the claims fail to provide an inventive concept sufficient to save the claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit said that Patent eligibility may be determined on a Rule 12(c) motion, but only when there are no factual allegations that, if taken as true, prevent resolving the eligibility question as a matter of law. The Federal Circuit said that determining patent eligibility requires a full under-standing of the basic character of the claimed subject matter. As a result, if the parties raise a claim construction dispute at the Rule 12(c) stage, the district court must either adopt the non-moving party\u2019s constructions or resolve the dispute to whatever extent is needed to conduct the \u00a7 101 analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before the district court, the parties disputed the construction of \u201ctoolbar,\u201d a claim term present in the claims of both MyMail patents. MyMail directed the district court to a construction of \u201ctoolbar\u201d rendered in another case involving the MyMail patents. The Federal Circuit noted that the district court never addressed the parties\u2019 claim construction dispute. Nor did the district court construe \u201ctoolbar\u201d or adopt MyMail\u2019s proposed construction of \u201ctoolbar\u201d for purposes of deciding ooVoo\u2019s and IAC\u2019s Rule 12(c) motions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit concluded that the district court erred by failing to address the parties\u2019 claim construction dispute before concluding, on a Rule 12(c) motion, that the MyMail patents are directed to patent-ineligible sub-ject matter under \u00a7 101, and vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Mymail, Ltd. v. Oovoo, LLC, [2018-1758, 2018-1759] (August 16, 2019), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded judgment on the pleadings, the district court erred by declining to resolve the parties\u2019 claim construction dispute before adjudging patent eligibility. 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],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2497","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\/2497","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=2497"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2497\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2498,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2497\/revisions\/2498"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2497"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2497"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2497"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}