Citing Lack of Clarity and Differing Standards Applied By District Courts, Delaware Chief Judge Stark Invalidates Two Patents But Declines to Decide Which Burden of Proof Applies in the Section 101 Context

Apr 22, 2015

Reading Time : 1 min

The court noted that although patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is an issue of law, “there is no clarity at this time as to the standard of proof that must be applied to factual disputes that may be intertwined with the issue of eligibility of a particular patent or claim.”  Id. at 9. In fact, Districts have applied different standards in addressing patent-eligibility under § 101 – some have treated the issue solely as a question of law, while others have applied a clear and convincing evidentiary burden. See id. at 10-11. The court declined to resolve the dispute over the standard of proof required to invalidate a claim under § 101, but instead explained that the ’050 and ’142 patents are patent ineligible even assuming the court must apply a clear and convince standard.  

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., No. 10-1067-LPS, in the District of Delaware (Apr. 22, 2015).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

June 5, 2026

The Supreme Court unanimously held that for a complaint of induced infringement, a patent owner must allege that the accused infringer took affirmative, not passive, steps to encourage direct infringement. Thus, where a generic drug has a skinny label, to induce infringement of the carved-out patented use of the drug, the generic company must have taken steps that were designed to cause others to perform the patented use, not just steps that could cause such conduct.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 07, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois granted a summary judgment motion of no invalidity based on indefiniteness because the qualitative terms like “sufficiently slow” and “desired period of time” were definite when viewed in light of the surrounding claim language and specification.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 9, 2026

In the April 1, 2026 edition of the Official Gazette, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced a new procedural framework that permits patent owners to submit a limited, early response to a request for ex parte reexamination.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice for failing to plausibly allege patent infringement. The court found that the allegations of direct infringement were insufficiently pled where the images of the accused product included in the complaint did not appear to show a particular necessary element of the claims.

...

Read More

© 2026 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.