REVERSED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1623 Ex Parte Edelman et al 11440529 - (D) GRIMES 103 SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP BLAND, LAYLA D
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2455 Ex Parte Kashyap 11404640 - (D) BENOIT 103 LAW OFFICES (San Jose) YU, XIANG
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2643 Ex Parte Rathonyi et al 11675881 - (D) BENOIT 102 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC HTUN, SAN A
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3672 Ex Parte Rouen 10711820 - (D) RICE 103 SCHLUMBERGER ROSHARON CAMPUS ANDREWS, DAVID L
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3738 Ex Parte Chuter 11825473 - (D) GRIMES 102/103 BRINKS HOFER GILSON & LIONE/CHICAGO/COOK SHIPMON, TIFFANY P
3748 Ex Parte Handler et al 11517865 - (D) DANIELS 103 KENYON & KENYON LLP BOGUE, JESSE SAMUEL
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2651 Ex Parte Grilliot et al 11247061 - (D) CURCURI 103 103 HONEYWELL/WOOD PHILLIPS EASON, MATTHEW A
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2836 Ex Parte Agostinelli 10476139 - (D) BOUCHER 103 103 ABELMAN, FRAYNE & SCHWAB CAVALLARI, DANIEL J
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3724 Ex Parte Stones et al 10889764 - (D) SCANLON 112(1)/112(2)/102/103 112(1) Black & Decker Corporation DEXTER,CLARK F
See Exxon Rsrch and Eng’g Co. v. U.S., 265 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“If the meaning of the claim is discernible, even though the task may be formidable and the conclusion may be one over which reasonable persons will disagree, we have held the claim sufficiently clear to avoid invalidity on indefiniteness grounds.”).
HARMON 1: 211, 238; 5: 230, 241, 247
DONNER 10: 23, 24, 26
AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1743 Ex Parte Lesschaeve et al 12278179 - (D) KATZ 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. KENNEDY, TIMOTHY J
1773 Ex Parte Williamson et al 11618987 - (D) HASTINGS 103 WOOD, HERRON & EVANS, LLP LEVKOVICH, NATALIA A
Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2116 Ex Parte Kim 11935029 - (D) COURTENAY 103 Stanzione & Kim, LLP YANCHUS III, PAULB
Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2451 Ex Parte Vosseler 10318210 - (D) KUMAR 102/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY DAFTUAR, SAKET K
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2828 Ex Parte Negro et al 11113542 - (D) POTHIER 103 Gesmer Updegrove LLP HAGAN, SEAN P
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Helmersson et al 10586032 - (D) SAINDON 103 MICHAUD-Kinney Group LLP O'CONNOR, MARSHALL P
3661 Ex Parte Duddles et al 11348713 - (D) BUNTING 103 Reising, Ethington, Barnes, Kisselle, P.C. NOLAN, PETER D
REEXAMINATION
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1731 Ex Parte Andritz INC. Appellant 90010403 5753075 08/738,239 LEBOVITZ 103 103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC Third Party Requester: FASTH LAW OFFICES (ROLF FASTH) JASTRZAB, KRISANNE MARIE original LEAVITT, STEVEN
FEDERAL CIRCUIT
REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3625 ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., AND ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HULU, LLC, Defendant, AND WILDTANGENT, INC., Defendant-Appellee. 2010-1544 7,346,545 09/867,181 RADER Concurring LOURIE 101 Hennigan, Bennett & Dorman LLP; Latham & Watkins, LLP original MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP POND, ROBERT M
First, it will be rare that a patent infringement suit can be dismissed at the pleading stage for lack of patentable subject matter. This is so because every issued patent is presumed to have been issued properly, absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. See, e.g., CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp., __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 1920941, *33 (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2013) (Chief Judge Rader, and Judges Linn, Moore, and O’Malley, concluding that “any attack on an issued patent based on a challenge to the eligibility of the subject matter must be proven by clear and convincing evidence,” and Judges Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna, and Wallach, concluding that a statutory presumption of validity applies when § 101 is raised as a basis for invalidity in district court proceedings.). Further, if Rule 12(b)(6) is used to assert an affirmative defense, dismissal is appropriate only if the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint, construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, suffice to establish the defense. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007). Thus, the only plausible reading of the patent must be that there is clear and convincing evidence of ineligibility. For those reasons, Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal for lack of eligible subject matter will be the exception, not the rule.
