Since the Supreme Court issued its decision in Alice v. CLS Bank five years ago today, patent eligibility jurisprudence and practice have become increasingly chaotic—at least in the opinion of many IP stakeholders and the members of Congress who are spearheading the effort to rectify the situation. Today, to commemorate Alice’s five-year anniversary/ birthday, IPWatchdog posed the following—admittedly somewhat leading—statement to a cross-section of the IP community, and gave them a chance to agree or disagree with it. Many did not respond—including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Google—perhaps because of the sensitive moment in the history of patent eligibility law in which we find ourselves right now. However, the responses below do reflect a range of views on the impact of the case so far.
After Alice: IP Stakeholders Comment on Alice’s Impact Five Years On
No Comments
Business
- Patents on Transactions Using Cryptocurrency: Square versus PayPal
- Managing the Perils of Public IP Company Ownership
- IPO Top 300, 2020: Slight Decreases in Patent Grants Due to Budgets, Not COVID
- Pardon Me? Levandowski Case Highlights Need for Proactive Approach to Avoid Trade Secret Problems in Hiring
- How Patents Enable Mavericks and Challenge Incumbents
Recent Posts
- NetSoc Appeals to SCOTUS, Claiming Improper Analysis of Social Network Patent Nixed Under 101
- The View from the Court’s 2 Live Crew: Examining the Thomas/Alito Dissent in Google v. Oracle
- Tillis, Michel and Iancu Back Ericsson in Heated International FRAND Dispute with Samsung
- The mRNA IP and Competitive Landscape Through One Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic – Part I
- The Upshot of Google v. Oracle: An Absurd Ruling Will Lead to Absurd Results