Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 13 AUGUST 2018

Spotlight On Upcoming Oral Arguments – August 2018

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

Uniloc appeals from an Eastern District of Texas decision finding the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,556,960 invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and granting Amazon's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

United StatesIntellectual Property

Monday, August 6, 2018

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 17-2051, Courtroom 402

Uniloc appeals from an Eastern District of Texas decision finding the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,556,960 invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and granting Amazon's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.  Uniloc argues that in granting Amazon's motion to dismiss, the district court inappropriately considered evidence beyond the pleadings and failed to draw all reasonable inferences in Uniloc's favor.  Uniloc further argues that the district court's holding relies on several unsupported factual findings, such as, what was "routine, generic, well-understood, or conventional" in the art at the time of the invention.  Amazon argues that the district court was entitled to take judicial notice of basic economic concepts and to rely on intrinsic evidence such as subject matter incorporated by reference in the patent.

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