Quantcast

Posts in Patentability


Changing the rules of the game is fundamentally unfair, which would be obvious to everyone if we were talking about football, soccer or playing a board game. Somehow common sense is abandoned when dealing with patents. Changing patent laws …

Continue Reading

The fact is, patent examiners are struggling with the application of 35 USC 101 in light of the Alice decision just as much as everyone else. Greater uncertainty among both patent applicants and patent examiners surely increases the likelihood of disagreement …

Continue Reading

''Whether in a software product or to embody the invention in a hardware product, is often nothing more than a design choice. Whether an innovation is embodied in software or hardware feels like it should be irrelevant to whether …

Continue Reading

Sadly, this is not an isolated case. I’ve seen similar rejections in a diverse (and utterly random) number of art areas and technologies ranging from predictive computer algorithms, to voice recognition technology, to methods for user-customization of advertising …

Continue Reading

I do feel that the whole notion of trying to find an “inventive concept” is really challenged. While the Supreme Court went out of its way to say we are really not putting Sections 102 or 103 in here, I think …

Continue Reading

It would be extremely unsettling if the Supreme Court has weakened Judge Lourie's resolve to independently and properly interpret the Patent Act. If there is another explanation for his flip-flop on matters of patent eligibility I would love to …

Continue Reading

Earlier today the United States Patent and Trademark Office released the promised patent eligible subject matter examples, which together with the recently released guidance will give applicants, patent prosecutors and patent examiners more information about how the USPTO interprets …

Continue Reading

Drew Hirshfeld, Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, went over the highlights of the USPTO interim guidance, explaining “first, we were able to narrow the funnel that we use to determine which claims should be analyzed for subject matter …

Continue Reading

Truthfully, the Supreme Court decision in Alice can only be described as an intellectually bankrupt. The Supreme Court never once used the word “software” in its decision. The failure to mention software a single time is breathtaking given that …

Continue Reading

These cases are very important though because they give us the best glimpse yet into understanding the disclosure requirements for software patents that utilize means-plus-function claim language. Understanding this particular aspect of patent drafting may be crucial moving forward …

Continue Reading

Despite the improvements that could reopen the door for important patents in important fields, the Guidelines seem far from perfect. But how could they be, given that they seek to harmonize the mushy judicial activism underlying Section 101 in the …

Continue Reading

Earlier this year the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Alice Corp. v CLS Bank Int’l, which applied the Mayo 2-part test to computer-implemented subject matter.[2] The 2-part test asks: (1) whether the claims at issue are directed to …

Continue Reading