"The petition argues that the panel's holding directly conflicts with the court's precedent in Yu v. Apple Inc., 1 F.4th 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2021) as well as Supreme Court precedent by allowing systems to avoid ineligibility simply by reciting conventional components that perform basic functions at a high degree of generality. The patent in this case seems to me similar to so many others -- it claims a known physical system at a fairly high level of generality and couples that with previously unknown information processing."
"This combination was enough to overcome an abstract idea challenge - and suggests a roadmap for artful dodging of the eligibility hurdles. In my view, the PowerBlock panel also seems to have have applied a mechanical versus software distinction that is not supported by Supreme Court precedent. I hope that the original panel will take a hard look at their reasoning. As noted below, I believe there are a couple of specific errors that could be fixed while still reaching the same outcome. That result would help insure that this decision avoids working potential mischief."
iFit Inc. filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in PowerBlock Holdings v. iFit, challenging the Federal Circuit's decision that automated exercise equipment claims are patent eligible. The petition contends the panel's holding conflicts with Yu v. Apple and Supreme Court precedent by permitting systems to escape ineligibility through reciting conventional components that perform basic functions at a highly general level. The patent claims a known physical system coupled with previously unknown information processing. That combination overcame an abstract idea challenge. The petition also argues the panel applied an unsupported mechanical-versus-software distinction and seeks reconsideration to correct specific errors.
Read at Patently-O
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]