Eagle View Techs., Inc. v. Xactware Solutions, Inc.
United States District Court
1Opinion of the Court
The linguistic distinction is important in order to apply the correct burden of proof. Under 35 U.S.C. § 282, a U.S. patent is afforded a statutory presumption of validity. A party seeking to prove an *404invalidity defense to infringement-such as patent ineligibility under § 101 -can overcome this presumption only by clear and convincing evidence.4 Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership , 564 U.S. 91, 97, 131 S.Ct. 2238, 180 L.Ed.2d 131 (2011). Thus, the motion seeks to have this Court determine whether the relevant granted claims are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and thus invalid.…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Scott v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2012
- Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2016
- Bilski v. KapposSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Pictometry International Corp. v. Roofr, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 2023