No. 18-1114
Response Waived
Experienced Counsel
Tags: 35-usc-101 ashcroft-v-iqbal claim-dismissal federal-circuit novel-improvements novel-invention novel-technical-improvements patent-eligibility patent-eligibility-35-usc-101 patent-infringement patent-presumption patent-validity presumption-of-validity routine-and-conventional rule-12(b)(6) rule-12b6 technical-improvements
Latest Conference:
2019-04-12
Question Presented (from Petition)
Can a court dismiss a patent infringement complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), for a lack of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101, when the complaint and patent assert that the invention yields novel technical improvements over existing technologies, or must those factual assertions be presumed true, consistent with Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Can a court dismiss a patent infringement complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), for a lack of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. $101, when the complaint and patent assert that the invention yields novel technical improvements over existing technologies, or must those factual assertions be presumed true, consistent with Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)?
Docket Entries
2019-04-15
Petition DENIED.
2019-03-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/12/2019.
2019-03-14
Waiver of right of respondent YAHOO! INC. to respond filed.
2019-02-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 28, 2019)
2018-12-18
Application (18A632) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until February 22, 2019.
2018-12-13
Application (18A632) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 24, 2018 to February 22, 2019, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Attorneys
TS PATENTS LLC
Matthew James Dowd — Dowd Scheffel PLLC, Petitioner
YAHOO! INC.
William Robert Peterson — Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Respondent