It has been more than two years since I last wrote here that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank decision has left the IP bar without a clear and reliable test to determine when exactly a software (or computer-implemented) claim is patentable versus being simply an abstract idea “free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.” It is now mid-2019, and the USPTO’s newest Section 101 guidelines interpreting Alice—and the accompanying examples—have not cleared the confusion, and Alice continues to distract the USPTO, courts, and practitioners from focusing properly on Sections 102 (novelty) and 103 (obviousness). The net effects still being increased cost, lower patent quality, lower patent portfolio valuations, wasted patent reform lobbying dollars and, in many instances, the denial of patent protection for worthwhile software inventions. Meanwhile, in the real world, which is experiencing the Fourth Industrial Revolution—where even the average modern car contains roughly 150 million lines of code—the importance of software is undebatable.
Business
- ‘Reasonable Efforts’ Require Care and Consistency
- WTO Announces COVID Vaccine Waiver Deal That Virtually No One Wants
- The Biden Administration’s Neutrality Position on SEP Remedies is a Good Move
- Mossoff-Barnett Comment on EU Commission’s Call for SEP Evidence Spotlights Misconceptions About FRAND Obligations
- Misusing March-in Rights for Price Control: A Dagger to the Heart of Small Companies
Recent Posts
- USPTO Report Underscores Split on State of U.S. Patent Eligibility Jurisprudence
- ‘Reasonable Efforts’ Require Care and Consistency
- CAFC Sends Centripetal Back to Drawing Board in Case with Cisco Due to Judge’s Stock
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, June 24: Congressional Hearings Focus on PTAB Reforms, French Regulators Accept Google’s Copyright Payment Framework, and DOJ Announces Settlement with Meta Over Biased Ad Algorithm
- Sotera Declarations Less Likely Given Vidal Memo on PTAB Discretion