[Editor’s Note: Bud Mathis is counsel for Killian]. The average attorney reading the recent opinion penned by Judge Chen and joined by Judges Taranto and Clevenger in In re Killian (Appeal 21-2113) might agree with Judge Chen’s conclusion that, “[w]hile there are close cases under the Alice/Mayo standard, the ’042 application does not present such a close case[.]” To this statement, I, Killian’s counsel, respond that, every time any claim comes close, the Federal Circuit engages in a predictable fiction in which the court: (1) announces that a claim is directed to “a something” described in such a broad and vague manner that “the something” barely resembles the claim at issue, (2) declares that “the something” that barely resembles the claim at issue is “abstract” based on no evidence or analysis, and then (3) declares that the remaining claim limitations lack an inventive concept.
- Recapping Abitron at the High Court: The Long Arm of the…Lanham Act?
- Why the Supreme Court Should Weigh in on CMI Violations Under the DMCA
- Precooked Bacon, Artificial Intelligence Patents, and a Defense of the Common Law
- SCOTUS Kills Hope for Eligibility Certainty and Nixes Teva’s ‘Skinny Label’ Appeal
- Newman Says Moore’s Order Alleging She is Unfit for Court is ‘Riddled with Errors’
- Understanding IP Matters: AI Bots, Creators, and Copyright — Learning to Live Together
- Clause 8: Joff Wild on Founding IAM for Chief IP Officers and EU Commission’s Anti-SEP Crusade
- UKIPO Issues New Trademark Guidance on NFTs, the Metaverse and Virtual Goods
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, May 26: USPTO Proposes Track Three Pilot Program for Micro Entity Patent Applicants; LeBron James Joins Taco Tuesday Trademark Battle; European Commission Releases List of Countries with Concerning IP Rights Protections
- Former Copyright Office GC Tells House IP Subcommittee His Counterpart Got It Wrong on AI Fair Use