Source: https://bannerwitcoff.com/ip-alert-technological-improvements-illustrative-solutions-and-computer-code-appendix-shields-against-a-motion-to-dismiss-on-alice-grounds/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:32:34+00:00

Document:
Like it did in Enfish, the Federal Circuit reiterated in Visual Memory that an explanation of technological improvements in a patent’s specification can be an effective tool to bolster subject matter eligibility of the patent’s claims. Even though the claims in Visual Memory might seem broad at first blush, the Federal Circuit was persuaded by the recitation of specific, technological improvements over prior memory systems, by the inclusion of illustrative solutions with concrete, specific values, and by the incorporation of hundreds of pages of computer programming code into the ’740 patent’s specification. Although the procedural posture in Visual Memory should not be discounted, a patent practitioner’s time would be well-served to scrutinize a patent’s specification for language that supports a problem-solution framework when addressing Alice-based concerns and to consider including more of such information if Alice-based issues are expected.
Click here to download the decision in Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.
[i] See Alice Corp. Prop. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
[ii] See Visual Memory, slip op. at 9–10.
[iii] See Id., slip op. at 12-14.
[ix] Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
[x] Id. at 8 (quoting Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36).
[xi] The Federal Circuit previously found that the claims at issue in Enfish and Thales focused on improvements to computer functionality, and thus were patent-eligible, while the claims in Content Extraction and TLI Communications were directed to abstract ideas, and thus were patent-ineligible. See Enfish, 822 F.3d 1327; Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014); In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation, 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
[xvi] See, e.g., Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350.
[xvii] See Visual Memory, slip op. at 10 (citing the ’740 patent specification at col. 2, ll. 47–52 and col. 4, ll. 21–26).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.