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.
- (Not) Copyright Infringement: Is dbrand Infringing Nintendo’s IP?
- The Transmissibility of Information: How Your Trade Secrets Are Like a Virus
- Examining Antitrust Guidance on Cooperation in Fighting COVID-19
- Everything Depends on Coronavirus R&D Partnerships—Don’t Let the Critics Wreck Them
- Boys Will Be Boys: Getting a Foot in the Funding Door for Women Entrepreneurs
- This Week in Washington IP: Reconsidering the DMCA Takedown System, Bridging Gaps in Federal Data Privacy Legislation, and Developing Technologies for Inclusive Cities
- Caldwell IP Law Seeks Patent Attorney or Agent to Join its Boston Office
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, May 29: USPTO Extends Filing Deadlines, PTAB Proposes New Rules Under SAS Institute and China IP Cases Up 5,660% in Two Decades
- Eleventh Circuit Finds ENGINEERED TAX SERVICES Mark Inherently Distinctive
- Section 512 Report Suggests Fine-Tuning Knowledge and Eligibility Requirements for DMCA Safe Harbors