Saturday, October 17, 2015

Twilight Zone Make IT Go Away Lawyer Rebuffed by Reality Cognizant Judge

Remember that Twilight Zone episode where the little boy has the power to make real things and real people "Go Away" simply by wishing it to be so?

All the adults are scared to death of Little Anthony.

Modern times have their own Little Anthony except that he sits on the Supreme Court with Clarence the Clown.

At long last a brave but lowly District Judge has said "No" to Little Anthony and his minions.

No. Reality doesn't go away simply because you wish it away with your Twilight Zone powers (i.e animating Alice's White Rabbit).

"Plaintiff responds by arguing that the “summary [of the claim] must include the core features of the claim.” (Resp. at 5.) Plaintiff also argues that the “text of the patent claims refutes Defendants’ assertion [that the clai ms are directed to an abstract idea] because each claim includes key features that are ignored in Defendants’ summary.” (Id. at 6.) Further, Plaintiff argues that “[a] person reading Defendants’ summary would have no idea that the claimed inventions required a central broadcast server, associated data channels, or transmitting data to a remote computing device whether it is online or offline to a data channel.” (Id.)

The Court does not disagree that the patented inventions, at some level, contain an implementation of the abstract idea of “packaging and transmitting information.” However, every invention can be reduced to some form of an abstract idea.
See Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2354 (“At some level, ‘all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.’ ”). The question before the Court, according to the Ineligible Concept Step of the Alice test, is not whether the Court is able reach into a patent and extract an abstract idea from which to determine patent-eligibility; such an exercise would render the Ineligible Concept Step a mere formality. Instead, the Court is directed to examine the Patents–in–Suit and to determine whether they are directed to an abstract idea. See Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355.
After considering the arguments and the evidence in the record, the Court finds that the Patents–in–Suit are not directed to an abstract idea.

No comments: