EDITORIAL NOTE: A diverse group of 46 amici, spearheaded by Trading Technologies International, filed an excellent amici brief worth reading in Alice v. CLS Bank at the United States Supreme Court. The Summary of the Argument is republished here with permission. Charles J. Cooper is the Counsel of Record, but is joined on the brief by Vincent J. Colatriano and William C. Marra (both of Cooper & Kirk), as well as Steven Borsand and Jay Knobloch (both of Trading Technologies)
In keeping with the Constitution’s expansive grant to Congress of power to secure for “Inventors” exclusive patent rights to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 8, Congress has since 1790 broadly defined the subject matter of inventions eligible for patent protection. For nearly as long, this Court has applied exceptions, of its own making, to Congress’s designation of these “broad patent-eligibility principles.” Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3225 (2010). This case focuses on one of those judicial exceptions – the “abstract ideas” exception.
The Court granted certiorari to decide “[w]hether claims to computer-implemented inventions – including claims to systems and machines, processes, and items of manufacture – are directed to patent-eligible subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101 as interpreted by this Court?” Importantly, the patent claims in this case do not recite “a scientific truth, or the mathematical expression of it,”  Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Co. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939), and no court below entertained any evidence relating to whether the claims are novel and non-obvious under Sections 102 and 103 of the Patent Act. Thus, the question here is whether computer-implemented inventions that are not directed to a scientific truth should be deemed ineligible even if such inventions are novel, non-obvious, and otherwise patentable. 
Washington– The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Internet Policy Task Force (IPTF) will hold the first meeting of the public multistakeholder forum on improving the operation of the notice and takedown system for removing infringing content from the Internet under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) on March 20, 2014 at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia. The meeting was called for in the Commerce Department’s Green Paper on Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economyreleased last year. The IPTF is a joint effort between the USPTO and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).
The goal of the multistakeholder forum is to identify best practices and/or produce voluntary agreements for improving the operation of the DMCA notice and takedown system. The IPTF plans to hold several additional meetings throughout the year. The initial meeting will focus on identifying concrete topics to be addressed by participants, and to discuss and make decisions about the process for the forum’s ongoing work. The IPTF aims to have participation from a wide variety of the notice and takedown system’s current users, including right holders and individual creators, service providers, and any other stakeholders that are directly affected – such as consumer and public interest representatives, technical and engineering experts, and companies in the business of identifying infringing content.
Google is a favorite among the corporations profiled here on IPWatchdog’s Companies We Follow series because of its development of interesting consumer technologies. As we check back in for our latest round with the company, we see that it hasn’t slowed its activities with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. We found an intriguing assortment of new technologies created by this company, especially those related to Google’s mobile device innovations.
The featured patent application for today highlights a novel system of using mobile devices to improve something millions of Americans do every day: order out for food. This Internet-based system of ordering enables more precise delivery, better estimation of arrival times as well as secure payments for food and other items. We also profile some patent applications pertaining to speech recognition technologies and online searches for flight itineraries.
EDITORIAL NOTE: Many no doubt are familiar with Carl Oppedahl, who for the last 10+ years has been writing an e-mail based newsletter. Carl has now joined the ranks of the blogging community and has asked me to notify readers of his new blog. With that in mind, and with Carl’s permission, what follows is a republication of his first blog post, which published on February 21, 2014.
In our office we try to track pretty closely the status of the cases that we have put on the Patent Prosecution Highway. It is a rare PPH case that reaches its first Office Action without at least one problem within USPTO that requires us to poke the USPTO. Today one of our PPH cases presented a problem that we had not seen before — a big delay in examination because the USPTO misclassified the case.
This case had been made Special on the Patent Prosecution Highway in October of 2013 because of a favorable Written Opinion from a PCT Searching Authority. For a Special case, USPTO’s case management system normally starts ringing an alarm on the Examiner’s desk after a couple of months. So we should have seen an Office Action at least a month ago, maybe two months ago. But that only works if the case has been assigned to an Examiner. Often the USPTO first assigns the case to a SPE and then it is left to the SPE to figure out which Examiner in the SPE’s art unit should actually examine the case. This case got assigned to the SPE in a particular art unit. Let’s call him “SPE V”. It seems that SPE V decided that this case had been misclassified and should not have gone to his art unit. So he tried to get rid of it.
The Myriad/Mayo guidelines include an example that discusses the patent eligibility of a purified amazonic acid. The USPTO guidelines read as follows:
“The Amazonian cherry tree is a naturally occurring tree that grows wild in the Amazon basin region of Brazil. The leaves of the Amazonian cherry tree contain a chemical that is useful in treating breast cancer. However, to be effective, a patient must eat 30 pounds of the leaves per day for at least four weeks. Many have tried and failed to isolate the cancer-fighting chemical from the leaves. Applicant has successfully purified the cancer-fighting chemical from the leaves and has named it amazonic acid. The purified amazonic acid is structurally identical to the amazonic acid in the leaves, but a patient only needs to eat one teaspoon of the purified acid to get the same effects as 30 pounds of the leaves…”
The view of the USPTO now is that a claim to purified amazonic acid is not patent-eligible because there is no structural difference between the purified acid in the claim and the acid in the leaves, and the claim does not include features that demonstrate that the recited product is markedly different from what exists in nature. However the proposition that only a structural difference suffices and that differences e.g. in purity and utility do not suffice is derivable neither from the opinion in Prometheus nor from the opinion in Myriad. It is abundantly clear from study of the opinion in Myriad that the reasons why the BRCA1 gene claim did not survive were that the gene had been defined in terms of its informational content rather than its chemical structure, and that no new utility for the isolated full-length gene had been disclosed. Such an interpretation is wholly consistent with the concession made on behalf of the Petitioners in oral argument.
According to data from Lex Machina, there has been a sharp decline in the number of patent litigation case filings so far in 2014. The obvious question this leads to is whether the patent litigation centric patent reforms presenting pending in the Congress are required if the number of patent infringement cases being brought is declining.
In January 2013, there were 490 new patent complaints filed. The number of new patent cases filed in January 2014 was 322. This represents a 34.3% drop in the number of new patent filings year to year, and represents the lowest number of new patent litigations since October 2011. See Patent Case Filings Drop Sharply in January to 322.
A source familiar with Lex Machina’s data tells me that the number of new patent lawsuits filed in February 2014 was also quite lower than during February 2013. During February 2013, according to Lex Machina data there were 548 new patent cases filed. The number of new patent cases filed during February 2014 was 456, which represents a decline of 16.8% year to year.
During the first two months of 2013 a total of 1,038 patent cases were filed, according to Lex Machina data, while the number of patent cases filed during the first to months of 2014 was just 778. This represents a decline of 25%.
In recent years, the American banking system has gone through major upheaval, as have financial industries across the globe, in response to the 2008 global economic crisis. According to digital news outlet Quartz, the fallout to this crisis currently has resulted in more profits that are being enjoyed by fewer, larger banks. In fact, Quartz reports that American bank profits in 2013 neared $160 billion and beat the industry’s pre-crisis peak revenue of $145 billion.
However, a new paradigm in financial systems is shaping up across the globe thanks to the one technology that’s been changing our world in incredible ways for at least the past two decades: the Internet. Globally, banks are racing to develop Internet-based banking systems, turning the idea of online banking from a checking or credit account service into a completely digital system of payment processing.
We’re seeing a lot of interesting financial innovations, and today we want to feature some unique and groundbreaking inventions developed by a trio of major players in the American banking industry. Today, we’ve profiled an assortment of patent applications and issued patents coming out of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that are assigned to Citigroup Technology of New York, NY; The Bank of America Corporation of Charlotte, NC; and JPMorgan Chase Bank, also of New York, NY.
How to Write a Patent Application is a must own for patent attorneys, patent agents and law students alike. A crucial hands-on resource that walks you through every aspect of preparing and filing a patent application, from working with an inventor to patent searches, preparing the patent application, drafting claims and more.
Without hesitation I recommend One Simple Idea and think it should be required reading for any motivated inventor. There is so much to like about the book and so much that I think author Stephen Key nails dead on accurate. The book is educational, information and inspirational. For the $14 cover price it is essential reading.
Typically blog roll links are not helpful to a website's rank. To give some additional "link love" to those we think you might be interested in reading we have moved our blog roll and links to a dedicated page. Go to IPWatchdog Blog Roll & Links.