McKool Smith represents Droplets, the holder of numerous patents related to rich Internet applications, in a litigation against several financial services defendants in the Southern District of New York as well as in other related litigations in the Eastern District of Texas and the Northern District of California. Petitioners, defendants in the concurrent SDNY litigation, informed the SDNY court that they would be requesting CBM review of one of the asserted patents. McKool Smith informed the SDNY court that any such petitions were inappropriate as the patent covers a technological innovation. Nevertheless, Defendants requested two CBM reviews of that asserted patent. Droplets’ prosecution counsel argued that such petitions failed to show that the patent was not for a technological innovation. The Board denied petitioner’s CBM review requests, holding that petitioners failed to show that the patent “is not for a technological innovation.” Specifically, the Board noted that it was not persuaded that “Petitioner has shown that the claimed subject matter, as a whole, does not recite a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art.” The case is E*TRADE Fin. Corp. et al v. Droplets, Inc., CBM2014-00123 and CBM2014-00123, Paper 15 in each (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2014)
If you have questions or need more information, please contact email@example.com.