Minelab Electronics Pty Ltd. v. XP Metal Detectors, et al., 16-cv-1594 (Homak, J.) (W.D. Penn. 2017)
- 7,310,586 | Entitled “Metal Detector with Data Transfer”
Denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
A method for operating a metal detector
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101 was denied. First the court determined that the claim at issue was not directed to an abstract idea because it requires the use of a specific type of metal detector, which is not employed “merely as a tool to make [the claimed method] process more efficient.” Next, the court determined that even if the claim was directed to an abstract idea, the claim would fulfill the second Alice step. Again the court focused on the fact that the claimed method required the use of a specific metal detector and determined that without said detector the claimed method could not be performed. As such, the court reasoned the second Alice step was met.