Cool concept, However No Patent


by Dennis Crouch

Gabara v. Fb, Inc. (Supreme Court docket 2022)

Thad Gabara is a former Bell Labs engineer and is a prolific inventor with 100+ patents in his title.  Alongside the way in which, Gabara additionally grew to become a patent agent and personally prosecuted lots of his latest patents, together with the Sliding Window patents asserted right here. U.S. Patent Nos. 8,930,131; 8,620,545; 8,836,698; 8,706,400; and 9,299,348.

Gabara’s Sliding Window patents cowl varied elements of a map show for a cell gadget. The issue: gadget screens are small and a consumer can solely see a portion of an precise map at anyone time.  Gabara’s answer is one thing he calls a “sliding window.”  Principally, the system has a knowledge construction for the entire map, however the display simply supplies a small window.  The view window then slides round as you progress the telephone about.  Figures 10(a) and 10(b) evaluate the prior artwork with Gabara’s invention.

Gabara sued Fb for patent infringement.  Fb responded with petitions for inter partes assessment (denied) and a movement to dismiss on eligibility (granted).  Decide Cote (SDNY) dismissed the case for failure to state a declare upon which reduction might be granted (12(b)(6)).  The district courtroom concluded the claims have been directed to an unpatentable summary concept of “Transferring the gadget to alter one’s view of the picture as an alternative of scrolling on the gadget to alter the view.”  On enchantment, the Federal Circuit affirmed with out opinion.   Now, Gabara has petitioned to the U.S. Supreme Court docket for assessment.  Though Gabara’s petition is exclusive, it additionally ties its hopes to the pending petition in American Axle. That case is awaiting the views of the Solicitor Common.

The Sliding Home windows patents cowl a novel information construction—a “background picture of a stationary map”—that permits customers to navigate giant pictures on a smartphone by shifting the telephone itself. This information construction is required by the patents’ claims, emphasised as the important thing to the invention all through the patents’ specs, and was the express foundation on which the PTAB relied to differentiate the patents over prior artwork. In ruling that the patents have been invalid underneath 35 U.S.C § 101 for claiming an summary concept, nonetheless, the courtroom beneath didn’t take into account this claimed information construction, excluded this categorical requirement from the patent claims from the courtroom’s characterization of what the claims have been “directed to,” and refused to contemplate the truth that as a result of this declare limitation distinguished prior artwork, the Sliding Home windows patents didn’t danger preemption of any summary concept.

The questions offered are:

What’s the acceptable normal for figuring out whether or not a patent declare is “directed to” a patent-ineligible idea underneath step 1 of the Court docket’s two-step framework for figuring out whether or not an invention is eligible for patenting underneath 35 U.S.C § 101?

Whether or not, and to what extent, a courtroom could ignore the “claimed advance” that distinguishes a patented invention over the prior artwork in its willpower of what a declare is directed to underneath step 1 of the Court docket’s two step framework for figuring out patent eligibility underneath 35 U.S.C. § 101?

Whether or not, and to what extent, a courtroom could take into account whether or not a patent declare supplies ample disclosure relating to how the claimed invention could also be made or used to find out whether or not a patent declare is eligible for patenting underneath 35 U.S.C. § 101, or whether or not that improperly conflates § 101 and § 112?

Whether or not preemption is a consideration that the decrease courts should take into account in figuring out whether or not a claimed invention is directed to patent-eligible material underneath Part 101, or whether or not it may be correctly ignored if not raised by the patent-challenger

Gabara v Fb PetitionforWrit.  Observe right here that Gabara initially pursued the case professional se.  For the enchantment and petition, he linked-up with Timothy Gilman’s group at Stroock.

= = =

Declare 1 of the ‘400 Patent:

1. A technique of shifting a conveyable unit to seek for a brand new location comprising the steps of:

displaying a picture on a display of the transportable unit matched and superimposed to a corresponding portion of a background picture of a stationary map;

mapping a primary level of the show picture positioned in a middle of the display of the transportable  unit to a corresponding reference level within the background picture of the stationary map;

shifting the transportable unit to show a brand new portion of the background picture of the stationary map on the display;

figuring out a brand new location within the new portion of the background picture;

figuring out a primary vector between the middle of the display of the transportable unit and the brand new location; and

shifting the middle of the display of the transportable unit to the brand new location as decided by the primary vector.

 

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.