Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 31 MARCH 2017

Section 101 Gaining Momentum: Applying Physics To Uncommon Inertial Sensor Configuration Is Not An Abstract Idea

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

In Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, No. 15-5150, the Federal Circuit reversed a decision of the Court of Federal Claims that found claims drawn to an inertial tracking system patent-ineligible...

United StatesIntellectual Property

In Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, No. 15-5150 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 8, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed a decision of the Court of Federal Claims that found claims drawn to an inertial tracking system patent-ineligible under Section 101.

Thales sued the U.S. Government, alleging infringement of Thales's patent directed to an inertial tracking system by the helmet-mounted display of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The patent claims a tracking system with a first sensor on an object being tracked, a second sensor on a moving reference frame, and an element that determines the tracked object's orientation relative to the moving reference frame using signals from both sensors.

The Court of Federal Claims found the claims were directed to "the abstract idea of using laws of nature governing motion to track two objects" were not patent eligible under Section 101.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from