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.
As Congress Contemplates Curbing Alice, More Than 60% of Issued U.S. Patents are Software Related
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
- Justices Lean Toward Limiting, Not Eliminating, Assignor Estoppel Doctrine in Minerva v. Hologic
- Kappos at PTAB Masters Day 2: PTAB Problems Arose When It Failed to Evolve
- EPO Opposition Division Upholds NuCana Patent on Gilead’s Sovaldi, Highlighting Potential Flaws of CAFC Ruling in Gilead/Idenix
- Countries Like the Philippines are Unable to Utilize IP Flexibilities to Fight COVID-19
- Why the Patent Classification System Needs an Update