Last year was an active one at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) for software eligibility. It also was a brutal year for patent owners, as the CAFC invalidated almost every software patent on appeal for eligibility. Despite the many cases decided last year, there is still some uncertainty about what passes muster under the Alice two-step framework promulgated by the Supreme Court in 2014. But one thing that has become increasingly clear is that the CAFC wants to see how a particular result is achieved or how a problem is solved. This desire for a “how” or rule set from the claims creates an evident tension with the traditional notion that patent claims should recite structure, not functional language. These recent CAFC cases have also made it clear that courts will look to the specification for implementation details, even if these details do not emerge in the claims. This analysis has previously been reserved for the written description requirement under Section 112 but found its way into the Alice two-step.
Recent Posts
- CAFC Affirms Dismissal of Opposition to iVoters Marks But Hints USPTO Should Reconsider Registration
- Why Creativity and Ownership Are Crucial to Innovation | IPWatchdog Unleashed
- Can Judge Hughes Course Correct the CAFC on Prosecution Laches?
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, April 4: CAFC Corrects Date of Public Accessibility in Trade Secret Appeal; Sixth Circuit Issues Divided Opinion in Data Privacy Appeal; and OpenAI Urges Broad Copyright Exception in UK
- Federal Circuit Tells Patent Applicant Expired Patents Don’t Get Provisional Rights Either