The oral argument of the day comes from Dialware Communications, LLC v. Hasbro, Inc. This is yet another patent eligibility case. From the oral argument, it appears that the claims were for toys that respond to sounds made by other toys — for example, use of the doppler effect to determine if another toy is moving toward the sound-receiving toy.
Despite the Rule 36 affirmance that all 250+ claims are patent ineligible based on a single representative claim, one argument theme that appears to be getting some traction these days is the theme of “over-reductionism.” Over-reductionism was an issue raised by Judge Hughes in the oral argument of Dialware as well as Judge Linn in the oral argument of Finjan.
After listening to Judge Hughes’ questions raised during the oral argument, you might find yourself curious as to how the Federal Circuit reached its decision in its de novo review of the patent ineligibility determination. Unfortunately, the Rule 36 Judgment will not fill the void for you.
The oral argument is available here:
The Rule 36 Judgment is available [here].