ITC ALJ Holds That the Presumption of Validity Does Not Apply to Section 101 Challenges

Mar 10, 2016

Reading Time : 1 min

Owner’s patents were directed to (1) a system for providing feedback for an individual’s weight-loss goals, including a wearable sensor that has a processing unit for balancing the wearer’s caloric intake and activity levels; and (2) a method and device for setting and modifying targets, such as health and activity targets. In holding that Owner’s patents were directed to unpatentable abstract ideas, ALJ Lord applied the two-step test set forth in the Supreme Court’s Mayo decision: (1) are the claims directed to an abstract idea, and, if so, (2) do the claims “transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” For the first step, the ALJ found that Owner’s patents were directed to the abstract idea of collecting and recording information related to weight loss and general health programs. For the second step, the ALJ found that the recited generic sensors and processors did not add sufficient meaningful limitations to the claims. Thus, the ALJ held that the claims are directed to ineligible subject matter.

ALJ Lord stated that, “[f]or the purposes of deciding whether the claims meet the demands of section 101, no presumption of eligibility applies.” This is the first time that an ITC ALJ has held that there is no presumption of validity in a Section 101 challenge. Further, ALJ Lord cited to a district court case holding the same, which in turn cited Judge Mayer’s concurrence in Ultramercial. Judge Mayer’s concurrence stated: “Although the Supreme Court has taken up several Section 101 cases in recent years, it has never mentioned — much less applied — any presumption of eligibility. The reasonable inference, therefore, is that while a presumption of validity attaches in many contexts, no equivalent presumption of eligibility applies in the section 101 calculus.” (Internal citations omitted). As a result of ALJ Lord’s holding, more respondents are likely to challenge patentability under Section 101 at the ITC.

Certain Activity Tracking Devices, Systems, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-963, Order No. 40 (March 3, 2016), Initial Determination Granting Respondents’ Motion for Summary Determination that the ‘546 and ‘257 Patents Are Directed to Ineligible Subject Matter (ALJ Lord).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

June 26, 2025

The Northern District of Ohio denied a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce test results referenced in its initial disclosures and complaint. The court found that because the “test results are not facts but rather are opinions,” the information was protected as work product. Furthermore, because that testing would not be used as evidence in the litigation, the defendant was not prejudiced.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit definitively held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has jurisdiction over IPRs that concern expired patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied a joint motion to stay the litigation pending resolution of inter partes review when it was uncertain that all defendants would be bound by the statutory estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 30, 2025

A district court recently dismissed a patent infringement complaint for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), finding that the storage and distribution of products from an Amazon warehouse was not sufficient to establish that warehouse as a regular and established place of business in the district.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 27, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Delaware finding of non-infringement in an ANDA litigation due to the patentee’s clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope during prosecution. Specifically, the court held that statements made during prosecution of a parent application before the asserted claims were allowed amounted to a prosecution disclaimer that extended to subsequent patents in the family. In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected an attempt by the patentee to resurrect the claim scope through a unilateral, self-serving statement made in later applications in the family.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.