| 翻訳と辞書 |
| DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com
''DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.'', , is the first United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision to uphold the validity of computer-implemented patent claims since the Supreme Court’s decision in ''Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International''.〔''Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l'', ; Blake Wong, ''(Solving Problems Unique to the Internet May be Patent-Eligible: DDR Holdings, LLC, v. Hotels.com, L.P. )'', (Jan. 29, 2015) (online version).〕 Both ''Alice'' and ''DDR Holdings'' are legal decisions relevant to the debate about whether software and business methods are patentable subject matter under Title 35 of the United States Code §101. The Federal Circuit applied the framework articulated in ''Alice'' to uphold the validity of the patents on webpage display technology at issue in ''DDR Holdings''.〔''DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com'', .〕
In ''Alice'', the Supreme Court held that a computer implementation of an abstract idea, which is not itself eligible for a patent, does not by itself transform that idea into something that is patent eligible.〔''Alice'', 134 S. Ct. at 2357.〕 According to the Supreme Court, in order to be patent eligible, what is claimed must be more than the abstract idea. The implementation of the idea must be something beyond the "routine," "conventional" or "generic."〔''Alice'', 134 S. Ct. at 2357.〕 In ''DDR Holdings'', the Federal Circuit, applying the ''Alice'' analytical framework, upheld the validity of DDR’s patent on its webpage display technology.〔''DDR Holdings'', 773 F.3d at 1248.〕
== Background ==
DDR Holdings, LLC ("DDR") filed a lawsuit against twelve entities including Hotels.com, National Leisure Group, World Travel Holdings, Digital River, Expedia, Travelocity.com, and Orbitz Worldwide for patent infringement. DDR settled with all but three of these defendants prior to an October 2012 jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The jury found that neither of the patents at issue were invalid, that National Leisure Group, Inc. and World Travel Holdings, Inc. (collectively "NLG") directly infringed both these patents, that Digital River directly infringed one of the patents, and that DDR should be awarded $750,000 in damages.〔''DDR Holdings'', 773 F.3d at 1248.〕
Following the verdict, the district court denied defendants’ motions for Judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and entered final judgment in favor of DDR, consistent with the jury’s findings.〔''DDR Holdings'', 773 F.3d at 1248.〕 Defendants appealed, however, by the time of oral argument, DDR settled with Digital River, and Digital River’s appeal was subsequently terminated. NLG continued its appeal.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|