No. 20-453

Consumer 2.0, Inc., dba Rently v. Tenant Turner, Inc.

Lower Court: Federal Circuit
Docketed: 2020-10-08
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: 35-usc-101 alice-test conventional-features graham-v-john-deere hindsight-bias patent-eligibility preemption section-101 section-103
Key Terms:
Antitrust CriminalProcedure Patent Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2020-11-20
Question Presented (from Petition)

1) Whether preemption is a threshold and defining consideration that the lower courts must consider in determining whether a claimed invention is directed to patent eligible subject matter under Section 101, and

2) Whether the courts below have erred in conflating the Step Two conventionality analysis of Alice with the factual prior art patentability analysis of Section 103, without the evidentiary opportunities and protections against hindsight bias afforded by Section 103 and in conflict with this Court's precedent in Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966).

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether preemption is a threshold and defining consideration that the lower courts must consider in determining whether a claimed invention is directed to patent-eligible subject matter under Section 101

Docket Entries

2020-11-23
Petition DENIED.
2020-11-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/20/2020.
2020-10-29
Waiver of right of respondent Tenant Turner, Inc. to respond filed.
2020-10-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 9, 2020)

Attorneys

Consumer 2.0 Inc. D/B/A Rently
Rudolph A. Telscher Jr.Husch Blackwell LLP, Petitioner
Tenant Turner, Inc.
Laurin Howard MillsSamek Werther & Mills, LLC, Respondent