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
- Groups on Both Sides Slam USTR Support for Delaying IP Waiver Extension Pending ITC Investigation
- USPTO Ramps Up Efforts to Promote Women Entrepreneurs
- Sign the Prenup: What Brands Can Learn From the Kanye West/Adidas IP Breakup
- Lessons from the Levandowski Case: Reimagining the Exit Interview as Risk Management
- Advocating for Ethics-Driven Regulation for Blockchain Technologies
Recent Posts
- Bayh-Dole Opponents Slam-Dunked Once Again
- SCOTUS Skeptical that Bad Spaniels is Parody, But Questions Need to Overturn Rogers
- Justices Seek Abitron Parties’ Help in Articulating Bounds of Extraterritorial Application of Lanham Act
- U.S. Taxpayers Should Not Be Paying for Private Patent Infringement
- UK Court Hands Down Key FRAND Ruling in InterDigital v. Lenovo