Case Overview

In a decisive victory for Siemens Industry Software, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware entered final judgment on July 10, 2024, invalidating all asserted claims of two electronic design automation (EDA) software patents held by Oasis Tooling, Inc. (OTI). The court’s ruling—grounded in patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101—effectively ended OTI’s infringement action targeting Siemens’ flagship Calibre Design Solutions suite.

The case, **Oasis Tooling, Inc. v. Siemens Industry Software, Inc.** (Case No. 1:22-cv-00151), ran 890 days from its February 2022 filing before concluding via summary judgment. The outcome underscores the continuing potency of § 101 as a litigation defense in software and EDA patent disputes—and signals meaningful risk for patent holders asserting functional software claims against well-resourced technology defendants.

For patent attorneys, in-house IP counsel, and R&D leaders operating in the EDA or broader software space, this case offers critical strategic lessons about claim drafting, patent prosecution, and litigation risk management.

The Parties

Patents at Issue

OTI asserted two U.S. patents relating to software architecture for processing and comparing design data, encompassing functional elements crucial for EDA tools:

• • U.S. Patent No. 7,685,545 — Software architecture for processing and comparing design data (e.g., parser, normalizer, logic, partitioning module, canonical forming module, digester, comparer, and reporter).
• • U.S. Patent No. 8,266,571 — Similar software architecture claims for processing and comparing design data.

These claims, focusing on generic software components performing data processing functions, are precisely the type that face intense § 101 scrutiny post-*Alice*.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

On **July 2, 2024**, the court granted Siemens’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Patent Ineligibility under **35 U.S.C. § 101**, finding all asserted claims of both the ‘545 and ‘571 patents invalid. Final judgment was entered **July 10, 2024**, in favor of Siemens on all counts, including Siemens’ counterclaims for declaratory judgment of invalidity. No damages were awarded; all outstanding motions were denied as moot.

Key Legal Issues

The legal crux of this case is **patent subject matter eligibility** under § 101, as interpreted through the two-step **Alice/Mayo framework**.

OTI’s asserted claims described software-implemented processes involving parsing, normalizing, partitioning, canonicalizing, digesting, comparing, and reporting design data. Courts have consistently found that claims reciting generic software components performing data processing functions—without meaningful technological improvement to the underlying computer or software architecture—fail § 101 scrutiny under *Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International* (2014).

The court’s willingness to resolve eligibility at summary judgment, rather than deferring to claim construction or trial, reflects the judiciary’s increasing comfort applying § 101 as a threshold validity filter in software patent cases.