No. 18-124
Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, et al.
Tags: 35-usc-101 abstract-idea factual-questions innovation-specificity motion-to-dismiss patent-claims patent-eligibility patent-eligibility-under-35-usc-101 patent-specification section-101 specificity-requirement technological-architecture
Latest Conference:
2018-10-12
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. In order to clear the threshold eligibility determination under 35 U.S.C. § 101, must a patent include in its claims a sufficient level of specificity such that the claims, read in isolation, fully describe the nature of the innovation and the means of achieving it?
2. Does a court's determination that a claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because it is not directed to an inventive concept that was previously unknown in the art require resolution of underlying factual questions that, when disputed, cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Innovative-technological-architecture-for-online-media-streaming
Docket Entries
2018-10-15
Petition DENIED.
2018-09-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/12/2018.
2018-09-25
Reply of petitioner Two-Way Media Ltd. filed.
2018-09-12
Brief of respondents Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, et al. in opposition filed.
2018-08-27
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 12, 2018.
2018-08-23
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 27, 2018 to September 12, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-07-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 27, 2018)
2018-05-08
Application (17A1229) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until July 27, 2018.
2018-05-07
Application (17A1229) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 7, 2018 to July 27, 2018, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Attorneys
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, et al.
Brian Lee Ferrall — Keker, Van Nest & Peters, LLP, Respondent
Two-Way Media Ltd.
Sarah E. Harrington — Goldstein & Russell, P.C., Petitioner
Verizon Services Corp. and Verizon Online LLC
Geoffrey Paul Eaton — Winston & Strawn LLP, Respondent