About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs


  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« Advanced Marketing Systems, LLC v. CVS Pharmacy (E.D. Tex. 2016) | Main | Motivation Innovations, LLC v. Petsmart, Inc. (D. Del. 2016) »

February 02, 2016


A federal judge, however, has now ruled that the TTAB's "threshold analysis" of the '792 Patent, at least in the context of a motion to dismiss, was wrong.

The Court rule that Defendants had persuasively identified a distilled version of the claims at issue: "offering an account-holder an alternative way to obtain cash or something of value — i.e., when the first transaction is denied, offering to perform a second type of transaction to achieve the same results."

See Global Cash Access, Inc. v. NRT Technology Corp. et al, 2-15-cv-00822 (NVD March 25, 2016, Order) (Du, J.)

{EDIT to second paragraph of submitted post} *The Court held

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29