No. 23-1184

Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.

Lower Court: Federal Circuit
Docketed: 2024-05-02
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (1)Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: 35-usc-101 alice alice-test computer-network distributed-computing functional-claiming patent-eligibility patent-subject-matter section-101 specificity-of-description
Key Terms:
CriminalProcedure Patent JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2024-09-30 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether claims drawn to solving specific problems restricting the usefulness of an existing computer-network technology recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intl, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Federal Circuit found that U.S. Patent No. 9,195,507 (the ’507 patent) “describes problems specific to the World Wide Web,” “explains how the invention purports to solve them,” and recites the solutions to those computer-network problems through “configuration requirements of a World Wide Web browser, World Wide Web pages, and the World Wide Web distributed hypermedia network.” Pet. App. 14a15a. These claims rebuilt the then-nascent Web in a manner that—for the first time—enabled secure and scalable “interactivity with remote objects on a client computer browser using distributed computing.” Pet. App. 12a. Yet the Federal Circuit concluded that these claims were not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter because, “[s]imply put, interacting with data objects on the World Wide Web is an abstraction.” Pet. App. 15a. The questions presented are: 1. Whether claims drawn to solving specific problems restricting the usefulness of an existing computer-network technology recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intl, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). 2. Whether Alice’s two-step eligibility analysis under § 101 can properly subsume considerations of conventionality, functional claiming, and specificity of description—which traditionally fall under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112. 3. Whether the claims of the ’507 patent are eligible for patenting under § 101 and Alice.

Docket Entries

2024-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2024-08-28
Reply of petitioner Eolas Technologies Incorporated filed. (Distributed)
2024-08-28
Reply of Eolas Technologies Incorporated submitted.
2024-08-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-07-31
2024-07-31
Brief of Amazon.com, Inc. in opposition submitted.
2024-07-25
Amicus brief of U.S. Inventor, Inc. submitted.
2024-06-29
2024-06-27
Amicus brief of U.S. Inventor, Inc. submitted.
2024-06-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 31, 2024, for all respondents.
2024-06-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 1, 2024 to July 31, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-05-31
Response Requested. (Due July 1, 2024)
2024-05-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/6/2024.
2024-05-15
Waiver of right of respondent Walmart, Inc. to respond filed.
2024-05-13
Waiver of right of respondent Amazon.com, Inc. to respond filed.
2024-05-13
Waiver of right of respondent Google LLC to respond filed.
2024-05-01
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 3, 2024)

Attorneys

Amazon.com, Inc.
Gabriel K. BellLatham and Watkins LLP, Respondent
Eolas Technologies Incorporated
John Bruce Campbell Jr.McKool Smith, P.C., Petitioner
Google LLC
Deepa AcharyaQuinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Respondent
U.S. Inventor, Inc.
Burman York Mathis Jr. — Amicus
Walmart, Inc.
Bijal Vijay VakilAllen Overy Shearman Sterling US LLP, Respondent