![]() Reyna wrote separately, concurring in part and dissenting in part. But the court forewarned that “the need for claim construction might be apparent just from the claim terms themselves, to arrive at ‘a full understanding of the basic character of the claimed subject matter.’” The Opinion: Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part The court explained that Aatrix’s second amended complaint contained “concrete allegations” that the claimed invention was “not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity” and offered “improvement to the functioning of the computer.” The Federal Circuit was “shown no proper basis for rejecting those allegations as a factual matter.” īecause the court concluded Aatrix was entitled to file its proposed second amended complaint, the court declined to address whether the district court should have held claim construction proceedings prior to granting the motion to dismiss. As for the patents at issue in Aatrix, “that question cannot be answered adversely to the patentee based on the sources properly considered on a motion to dismiss, such as the complaint, the patent, and materials subject to judicial notice.” ![]() The Federal Circuit explained that “hile the ultimate determination of eligibility under Section 101 is a question of law, like many legal questions, there can be subsidiary fact questions which must be resolved en route to the ultimate legal determination.” According to the court, the “subsidiary fact question” for the district court was “hether the claim elements or the claimed combination are well-understood, routine, conventional activity” under the second step of the Alice/Mayo test. The Majority OpinionĪs an initial matter, the Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in holding that one of the asserted claims was ineligible solely because it is directed to “an intangible embodiment.” Because the claim recited a data processing system that required computer operating software, a means for viewing and changing data, and a means for viewing forms and reports, it was “very much a tangible system.” īut the heart of the Federal Circuit’s opinion lies in its treatment of the Section 101 decision at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage. Aatrix appealed, and on February 18 the Federal Circuit reversed. Aatrix moved for reconsideration and for leave to amend the complaint, which the district court denied because amendment would be futile. ![]() The district court granted Green Shades’ motion and held every claim ineligible under Section 101. moved to dismiss the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida case under Rule 12(b)(6) on the grounds that the asserted patents were ineligible under Section 101 of the US Patent Act (35 USC § 101), Aatrix argued that the motion should be denied as premature in the absence of claim construction. When defendant Green Shades Software, Inc. asserted patents directed to systems and methods for designing, creating, and importing data into a viewable form on a computer so that users can manipulate the form data and create viewable forms and reports. Green Shades Software, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal on Section 101 grounds because the complaint’s factual allegations, accepted as true, prevented resolving the eligibility question as a matter of law. As such, parties to patent proceedings should consider their long-term strategies for Section 101 challenges under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). clarified that although Section 101 of the US Patent Act is ultimately a question of law, it may involve subsidiary fact questions that may preclude a Section 101 decision at the pleadings stage. ![]() The decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Aatrix Software, Inc.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |