No. 21-1370
Spireon, Inc. v. Procon Analytics, LLC
Relisted (2)
Tags: 35-usc-101 abstract-idea claim-construction fact-question federal-circuit judicial-exception patent-eligibility patent-ineligibility pleadings
Latest Conference:
2022-06-29
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. What is the appropriate standard for determining whether a patent claim is "directed to" a patent-ineligible concept under step 1 of the Court's two-step framework for determining whether an invention is eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101?
2. Is patent eligibility (at each step of the Court's two-step framework) a question of law for the court based on the scope of the claims or a question of fact for the jury based on the state of the art at the time of the patent?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
What is the appropriate standard for determining patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101?
Docket Entries
2022-06-30
Petition DENIED.
2022-06-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/29/2022.
2022-06-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/23/2022.
2022-06-02
Reply of petitioner Spireon, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
2022-05-23
Brief of respondent Procon Analytics, LLC in opposition filed.
2022-04-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 23, 2022)
Attorneys
Procon Analytics, LLC
Spireon, Inc.
David Bergstrand Jinkins — Thompson Coburn LLP, Petitioner