Polar Electro Oy v. Firstbeat Technologies Oy

The district court granted summary judgment on patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 but, in doing so, created its own patent eligibility argument that went far beyond what was presented, independently assembling and analyzing prior art never identified by the movant, using that unbriefed material to reject unrebutted expert testimony, and resolving factual issues against the nonmovant patentee. A Federal Circuit panel affirmed under Rule 36. The questions presented are:

1. Whether a court may create its own invalidity argument – including independently finding evidence, assembling rationales, and supplying evidentiary showings the movant did not provide – when the movant has raised a defense but failed to adequately support it, or whether doing so violates the party-presentation principle. This question arises here in the context of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, where the concern is reinforced by (a) the challenger’s burden of proving invalidity by clear and convincing evidence, and (b) the statutory presumption of validity that Congress established, but the principle extends to all litigants across all areas of law.

2. Whether a claimed process that takes a realworld physiological input from the body and uses that input within a specific, improved process to produce a more accurate technological result –