![]() In step one, a court determines whether the claims are “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea. ![]() Supreme Court’s two-step Alice framework. The court analyzed eligibility using the U.S. Claim 3, which depends from claim 1 and survived the IPR proceeding, recites that “the computer is configured to communicate directly with at least one of the hearing aid, the cochlear implant speech processor, the electric elements of the electric-acoustic processor, and the acoustic elements of the electric-acoustic processor through wireless communications.” MED-EL argued that claim 3 recites patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. Clinicians “fit” these components by modifying parameters for electrical and acoustic stimulation to ensure comfortable sound ranges.Ĭlaim 1 of the ’747 Patent was invalidated in an IPR proceeding. The ’747 Patent is directed to systems for fitting cochlear implants and hearing aids. In response, AB asserted its own patents, including U.S. and MED-EL Corporation, USA (collectively, MED-EL) sued Defendants Advanced Bionics, LLC, Advanced Bionics AG and Sonova AG (collectively, AB) for infringing patents related to cochlear implants. Plaintiffs MED-EL Elektromedizinische Gerate GES.M.BH. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Gerate GES.M.B.H. The court found that the claim-at-issue recited the abstract idea of wireless communication between a computer and hearing devices. ![]() A single dependent claim remained at issue in the case after other claims were invalidated in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. The patent is directed to cochlear implants. Judge Wolson in the District of Delaware recently granted a motion for summary judgment of invalidity for patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |