The conclusion:
Because, in view of the foregoing, we agree that the operative complaint asserted infringement of only claims 1
and 31–33 of each asserted patent, and because Sage did
not file any counterclaim of its own (instead, it simply
moved to dismiss Hantz’s complaint), we conclude that the
ineligibility judgment should apply to only claims 1 and
31–33 of the asserted patents. We therefore vacate the district court’s judgment insofar as it held any claim other
than claims 1 and 31–33 of each asserted patent ineligible
and affirm in all other respects.
No comments:
Post a Comment